Photo by Olga Loginova. Used with permission.

This article was written by Dmitriy Mazorenko, Nazerke Kurmangazinova, Olga Loginova, Beiimbet Moldagali, Almas Kaisar, and Victoria Natachiyeva for Vlast.kz and published on October 10, 2024. An edited version is published on Global Voices under a media partnership agreement. 

Based on the October 6th referendum in Kazakhstan, an overwhelming number of voters seem to be in favor of constructing a nuclear power plant; however, amid widespread violations at the polls and waning political participation, experts and observers are seriously questioning the authenticity of this result.

The lack of political participation isn't exactly surprising. A string of unfulfilled promises since Qandy Qantar (Kazakh for “Bloody January,” the violent crackdown on protestors in 2022) disappointed Kazakhstanis, who showed little interest in the referendum, which President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev had already pushed for in 2023.

Ever since taking power in 2019, Tokayev has also announced a number of reforms, but the changes only further stifled opposition and political participation. The trend continued during the referendum, as police arrested and filed criminal cases against dozens of activists.

While the authorities said the referendum would be a prime example of direct democracy, political scientist Dosym Satpayev and sociologist Serik Beissembayev told Vlast that this was an instrument to rubber stamp a decision that had already been made. Both experts argued that the increasingly intense repression against the opposition was inevitable, given society's growing dissatisfaction with the ruling government.

Preparations for a ‘yes’ vote

For about a year, the central and regional governments have scrambled to put together public hearings and expert discussions, to which they only invited specialists loyal to the government. Government agencies repeatedly said they had nothing to do with the hearings, attributing them to the goodwill of civic activists. In fact, these events were organized by groups such as the pro-government Civil Alliance.

The main refrain at each of these events was the issue of energy security: The country’s increasing electricity consumption would put it at risk unless a nuclear power plant was built. Neither the authorities nor the government-friendly groups offered any alternative options to make up for the increased electricity demand. The “yes” side of the referendum also routinely ignored and marginalized the experts who came out against the nuclear project.

A public discussion ahead of the referendum in Almaty. Photo by Almas Kaisar. Used with permission.

A few days before the referendum, police detained about 40 activists across the country. They had voiced their criticism towards the planned nuclear power plant. Some of them now face criminal charges, while a handful were given a two-month detention sentence for allegedly “organizing mass unrest.”

The questionable results

More than 5.5 million people (71.12 percent of the total) voted in support of the construction of the nuclear power plant at the referendum, according to official data. Independent observers, however, said the numbers for both the turnout and the voting results are unreliable.

Vlast collected voting protocols from independent observers and open sources, showing that the “no” vote stood at 57 percent at 31 polling stations in Almaty, Uralsk, Astana, Pavlodar, Semey, Shymkent, and the Turkestan region.

In Almaty, while the official statistics give a 54:46 “yes” victory, the evidence suggests that 55 percent of voters were against the project.

A protocol of the vote tally, which shows significantly more “no” votes, from one of the voting centers in Almaty.

Observers also recorded a number of gross procedural violations. Berik Abenov, from the Uly Kosh Foundation, filmed a woman in the village of Temirlan in the Turkestan region throwing a stack of ballots into a ballot box and then running away.

Kural Seytkhanuly, also from Uly Kosh, noticed a person in Turkestan trying to stuff a handful of ballots into a ballot box. He reported this to the commission chairwoman, who refused to take action. The prosecutor's office also left this case unchecked.

Some observers, including Seytkhanuly, were removed from the polling stations.

Another case involved journalists Lukpan Akhmedyarov and Raul Uporov, who were listed as observers in Astana for the Erkindik Kanaty Foundation. Other observers, however, asked the commission to remove them. A spokesperson for Erkindik Kanaty told Vlast:

There were no grounds for Lukpan and Raul to be removed. These decisions were made arbitrarily and illegally. Observers do not even have the right to petition for the removal of their colleagues.

Inactive activists

This past referendum, if anything, was a sign of a weakening public participation across the country.

Vadim Ni, an environmental law specialist and a co-founder of the platform AES Kerek Emes (Kazakh for “No Need for NPP” [nuclear power plant]), said that only few people were involved in their public discussions during their campaign to vote “no” for the referendum.

A ballot showing a “no” vote in Astana. Photo by Tamara Vaal. Used with permission.

Roman Reimer, co-founder of Erkindik Kanaty, agreed: “Ahead of the referendum, there were only isolated attempts to register groups and create a coalition among those who oppose the construction of the nuclear power plant.”

According to Ni, there was simply too little time to organize a campaign. On September 2, during his speech to the nation, Tokayev set the date to October 6, just five weeks later. This was not enough for a detailed discussion on such a complex topic, Ni quipped.

Trust me, I’m listening

Political scientist Dosym Satpayev told Vlast that the recent referendum has nothing to do with direct democracy. He argued that referendums are a tool often used in authoritarian regimes to create the illusion of democracy. In Kazakhstan, this strategy already had various names since Tokayev came to power: from “New Kazakhstan” to a “Listening State.”

This referendum was the fourth in the history of Kazakhstan and the second after Qandy Qantar. All of them were a tool for manipulating public opinion in order to legitimize a decision that had already been made. Ahead of the vote, there was always strict control and pressure on opponents.

Sociologist Serik Beissembayev said that a 63.6 percent turnout was unrealistic. Turnout had shown a constant decline in previous electoral rounds.

It wasn’t a nail biter. Government officials at all levels echoed the president's mandate, calling for a ‘yes’ vote. The people understood that the country's leadership had already made a decision. Citizens who expressed the opposite point of view were stigmatized.

Tokayev’s unfulfilled promises after Qandy Qantar were the reason for society’s apathy and disappointment, which should have translated into a lower turnout.

Former President Nursultan Nazarbayev cast his vote at the referendum. Photo by Tamara Vaal. Used with permission.

Beissembayev and the Demoscope, a research organization, planned to conduct a telephone survey that could provide alternative data on turnout and the level of support for the construction of the nuclear power plant. However, the Central Election Commission refused to accredit them. Beissembayev told Vlast:

This amounts to censorship. This is the government ordering to hinder the work of an independent research organization. I think that the entire system is set up to control the media space and suppress independent sources of information.

Satpayev argued that the government fears society:

The elites are currently discussing whether Tokayev will extend his term of office by changing the Constitution or find a successor. The construction of the nuclear power plant will overlap with the next transition period, and those who will build it need a stable regime.

Against the backdrop of the transition, Satpayev expects more repression. Beissembayev also expects a strengthening of the current authoritarianism.

There is a growing distrust towards the entire political system of Kazakhstan. We have returned to the same system that was under Nazarbayev. And this could be the fuel of future protests. When people do not trust the political system, they are more prone to radicalization.