Kazajstánsucesión presidencial e inestabilidad política en un Estado neopatrimonial

  1. Rubén Ruiz Ramas 1
  1. 1 Sun Yat-sen University
    info

    Sun Yat-sen University

    Cantón, China

    ROR https://ror.org/0064kty71

Revista:
RESI: Revista de estudios en seguridad internacional

ISSN: 2444-6157

Año de publicación: 2018

Volumen: 4

Número: 2

Páginas: 81-98

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.18847/1.8.6 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: RESI: Revista de estudios en seguridad internacional

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

La negativa de Nursultán Nazarbayev tanto a designar públicamente un sucesor, como a fortalecer las instituciones sobre las que puede recaer esta responsabilidad, alimenta el potencial de conflictividad del futuro contexto de sucesión. El horizonte de la transferencia del poder preocupa desde hace años a Nazarbáyev, quien en verano de 2018 cumple 78 años, no solo por las consecuencias para su familia sino también por el riesgo de conflicto entre las redes de élites y sus bases de poder sociales, étnicas o regionales. Un tipo de inestabilidad política vulnerable a una escalada a eventos de mayor amenaza para la seguridad nacional e incluso regional. Este artículo tiene por objeto analizar, por un lado, la vulnerabilidad estructural de Kazajstán ante un contexto de sucesión presidencial producto de su naturaleza como régimen autoritario y Estado neopatrimonial; y por otro lado, examinar la preparación por parte de las autoridades de dicho contexto y las opciones disponibles para acometer la transferencia del poder ante la eventual salida del presidente Nursultán Nazarbáyev. Para ello, inicialmente se aborda el modelo de Estado neopatrimonial en Asia Central, para a continuación estudiar la naturaleza específica del autoritarismo y del neopatrimonialismo en Kazajstán. Finalmente, se profundiza en el contexto de sucesión kazajo y se consideran las distintas opciones de transferencia del poder, así como los actores políticos unidos a ellas.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aliev, Timur M. (2013), “Voprosy ekonomiki.” “Kazakhstan: ‘resursnoe prokliatie “ili” gollandskaia bolezn’?”, Voprosy ekonomiki, No. 6, pp. 120–41.
  • Ambrosio, Thomas (2015), “Leadership Succession in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan: Regime Survival after Nazarbayev and Karimov”, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 49-67.
  • Balmaceda, Margarita (2008), Energy Dependency, Politics and Corruption in the Former Soviet Union: Russia’s Power, Oligarchs’ Profits and Ukraine’s Missing Energy Policy 1995-2006, Londres: Routledge.
  • Bratton, Michael & Van de Walle, Nicholas (1997), Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime Transitions in Comparative Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Conway, J.E. (2013), “Moving beyond the Leadership “Parlor Game”: Foreign Investment and the Succession Issue in Kazakhstan”, Central Asia Policy Brief, No. 8.
  • Cooley, Alexander & Heathershaw, John (2017), Dictators Without Borders. Power and Money in Central Asia, New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Cummings, Sally N. (2005), Kazakhstan: power and elite, Londres y New York: I.B. Tauris.
  • Cummings, Sally N. (2012), Understanding Central Asia: Politics and Contested Transformations, Londres: Routledge.
  • Danilovich, Alex (2010), “Kazakhs, a Nation of Two Identities”, Problems of Post-Communism, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 51-58.
  • Dave, Bhavna (2007), Kazakhstan: ethnicity, language and power, Londres: Routledge.
  • Diener, Alexander C. (2015), “Assessing potential Russian irredentism and separatism in Kazakhstan’s northern oblasts”, Eurasian Geography and Economics, Vol. 56, No. 5, pp. 469-492.
  • Domjan, Paul & Stone, Matt (2010), “A Comparative Study of Resource Nationalism in Russia and Kazakhstan 2004-2008”, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 35-62.
  • Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. (1978), Revolution and the Transformation of Societies: A Comparative Study of Civilizations, Nueva York: Free Press.
  • Erdmann, Gero & Engel, Ulf (2006), “Neopatrimonialism Revisited – Beyond a Catch-All Concept”, GIGA Working Paper, No. 16, Hamburgo, German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA).
  • Erdmann, Gero (2012), “Neopatrimonialism: Problems of a Catch-All Concept”, en Stewart, Susan (ed.), Presidents, Oligarchs and Bureaucrats: Forms of Rule in the Post-Soviet Space, Londres: Ashgate.
  • Ezrow, Natasha & Frantz, Erica (2011), “State institutions and the survival of dictatorships”, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 1–13.
  • Franke, Anja, Gawrich, Andrea & Alakbarov, Gurban (2009), “Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan as Post‐Soviet Rentier States: Resource Incomes and Autocracy as a Double ‘Curse’ in Post‐Soviet Regimes”, Europe‐Asia Studies, Vol. 61, No.1, pp. 109‐140.
  • Horák, Slavomir (2012), “The Elite in Post-Soviet and Post-Niazow Turkmenistan: Does Political Culture Form a Leader?”, Demokratizatsiya, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 371-385.
  • Iljamov, Alisher (2007), “Neopatrimonialism, Interest Groups and Patronage Networks: The Impasses of the Governance System in Uzbekistan”, Central Asian Survey, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 65-84.
  • International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (2016), Offshore Leaks Database: Nurali Aliye: https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/stories/nurali-aliyev
  • Isaacs, Rico (2011), Party system formation in Kazakhstan: between formal and informal politics, London and New York: Routledge.
  • Isaacs, Rico (2013), “Nur Otan, Informal Networks and the Countering of Elite Instability in Kazakhstan: Bringing the ‘Formal’ Back In”, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 65, No. 6, pp. 1055-1079.
  • Jones Luong, Pauline (2002), Institutional Change and Political Continuity in Post-Soviet Central Asia: Power, Perceptions, and Pacts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Junisbai, Barbara (2010) “A Tale of Two Kazakhstans: Sources of Political Cleavage and Conflict in the PostSoviet Period”, Europe Asia Studies, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 235-269.
  • Kembayev, Zhenis (2017), “Recent Constitutional Reforms in Kazakhstan: A Move towards Democratic Transition?”, Review of Central and East European Law, Vol. 42, pp. 294-324.
  • Kjærnet, Heidi, Torjesen, Stina & Satpaev, Dosym (2008), “Big Business and High-level Politics in Kazakhstan: An Everlasting Symbiosis?”, China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 95-107.
  • Kitschelt, Herbert (1999), Postcommunist party systems: competition, representation, and interparty cooperation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Koch, Natalie (2018), “Disorder over the border: spinning the spectre of instability through time and space in Central Asia”, Central Asian Survey, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 13-30.
  • Kochan, Nick (2014), “Kazakhstan – the succession”, Open Democracy, 24 de febrero de 2014: http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/nick-kochan/kazakhstan-–-succession
  • Kononenko, Vadim & Moshes, Arkady (2011), Russia as a Network State: What Works in Russia When State Institutions Do Not?, Londres: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Laruelle, Maurene (2012), “Discussing Neopatrimonialism and Patronal Presidentialism in the Central Asian Context”, Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 301-324.
  • Levitsky, Steven & Way, Lucas A. (2010), Competitive Auhtoritarianism. Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Masanov, Nurbulat (1996), “Kazakhskaia politcheskaia I intellektualnaia elita: klanovaia Prinadlezhnost’ I vnytrietnicheskoe copernichectvo”, Vestnik Evrazii, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 46-61.
  • Ostrowski, Wojciech (2009), “The Legacy of the 'Coloured Revolutions': The Case of Kazakhstan”, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 345-368.
  • Ostrowski, Wojciech (2010), Politics and Oil in Kazakhstan, Londres: Routledge.
  • Peyrouse, Sebastian (2012), “The Kazakh Neopatrimonial Regime: Balancing Uncertainties among the "Family", Oligarchs and Technocrats”, Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.345-370.
  • Radnitz, Scott (2005), “Networks, Localism, and Mobilization in Aksy, Kyrgyzstan”, Central Asian Survey, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 405-424.
  • Radnitz, Scott (2006), “What Really Happened in Kyrgyzstan?”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 132-146.
  • Radnitz, Scott (2010), Weapons of the Wealthy: Predatory Regimes and Elite-Led Protests in Central Asia, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  • Ruiz Ramas, Rubén (2010), “Los regímenes neopatrimonialistas y el clan en Asia Central, 1991-2010: un análisis conceptual”, en Stavridis, Stelios y De Prado, César (eds.), Panorámica de actores y factores de Asia Central, Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza, pp 9-28.
  • Ruiz Ramas, Rubén (2013), “The Institutional Persistence of Patrimonialism in the Kyrgyz Republic: Testing a Path Dependency (1991-2010)”, en Ahrens, Joachim & Hoen, Herman W. (eds.), Institutional Reform in Central Asia. Politico-economic challenges, Londres: Routledge. Ruiz Ramas, Rubén (2017), “Turkmenistán, evolución de un Estado Neopatrimonial y persistencia de su vulnerabilidad al golpe de palacio”, UNISCI Journal, No. 45, pp. 34-50.
  • Rustemova, Asel (2011; 2012), “Kazakhstan”, noviembre-diciembre 2011, enero-marzo 2012 y mayo - junio 2012. The Central Asian Observatory Bulletin. Artículos disponibles en: http://www.asiacentral.es/boletin.php
  • Sabonis-Helf, Theresa (2005), “The rise of the post-Soviet petro-states: energy exports and domestic governance in Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan”, en Burghart, Dan & Sabonis-Helf, Theresa (eds.), In the tracks of Tamerlane: Central Asia’s path to the 21st century, Washington D.C.: National Defense University.
  • Satpaev, Dosym, (2007), “An Analysis of the Internal Structure of Kazakhstan´s Political Elite and an Assessment of Political Risk Levels”, en Tomohiko, Uyama (ed.), Empire, Islam and Politics in Central Eurasia, Sapporo: Slavic Research Center Hokkaido University.
  • Schatz, Eedward (2004), Modern Clan Politics: The Power of ‘Blood’ in Kazakhstan and Beyond, Seattle: University of Washington Press.
  • Schatz, Edward & Elena Maltseva (2012), “Kazakhstan's Authoritarian "Persuasion"”, Post-Soviet Affairs, Vol. 28, No.1, pp. 45-65.
  • Sharkov, Damien (2016), “Kazakhstan Refuses to Investigate Panama Paper Links to President’s Family”, Newsweek, 25 de abril de 2016: http://www.newsweek.com/kazakhstan-refuses-investigate-panama-papers-links-presidents-family-451996
  • Sjöberg, Friedrik (2011), Competitive Elections in Authoritarian States: Weak States, Strong Elites, and Fractional Societies in Central Asia and Beyond, Tesis Doctoral. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.
  • Snyder, Richard (1992), “Explaining Transitions from Neopatrimonial Dictatorships”, Comparative Politics, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 379-400.
  • Timm, Christian (2010), Neopatrimonialism by Default: State Politics and Domination in Georgia after the Rose Revolution, Hamburgo: GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
  • Tengri News (2013), “Kazakhstan’s President on succession of power”, 5 de julio de 2013: http://en.tengrinews.kz/politics_sub/Kazakhstans-President-on-succession-of-power-20820/
  • Tunçer-Kılavuz, İdil (2011), “Understanding Civil War: A Comparison of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan”, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 263-290.
  • Von Soest, Christian (2010), What Neopatrimonialism Is – Six Questions to the Concept, Hamburgo: GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet