The exhausted horse should go to the stable
Akezhan Kazhegeldin's interview to the Soldat newspaper

Late last year, I visited the U.S. together with a group of opposition members. I came there as editor-in-chief of an independent newspaper. During the visit, we met with representatives of the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Department of State, and other international organizations. We also had a chance to talk with Akezhan Kazhegeldin. Our talk was long and comprehensive.

Akezhan Magzhanovich, as far as I know you have come to Washington from Paris. Is is not dangerous for you to stay in Western Europe?

- That depends on what you mean. If you are speaking about terrorism, the danger is almost the same in all main European capitals. If you mean the intrigues of Kazakh special services, their activity here is constrained by local counterintelligence. I am grateful to them for their care.

What is the reason for your many trips to different countries and continents. We in Kazakhstan learn about them mainly from the Internet. For example, what have you done in Paris?

- Everywhere, where I happen to be, I do the same: I meet with members of governments and parliaments, high-ranking officials of foreign ministries, and journalists. Sometimes I take part in the events held by centres for strategic research, and consult big international corporations.

In Paris, for instance, I had talks in Quai d'Orsay as they have nicknamed their foreign policy department by its location. Naturally, I also met with members of parliament and the committee on foreign policy. In addition, journalists who write about Central Asia, asked me to tell them about the mechanism of events unfolding there. However, this was not an interview, but a talk off the record. I was asked about current situation in Kazakhstan, the role of democratic forces, and a possible way out of the impasse in which Kazakhstan has found itself under Nazarabyev's rule.

Do they really call the situation in Kazakhstan 'the impasse'?

- That depends on the degree of confidence of the talk, the publicity could also prevent a person from expressing his exact feelings. Naturally, diplomats are more cautious in their wording. But members of parliaments are by far more straightforward in voicing their opinions. U.S. congressmen call Nazarbayev the dictator, and put him on a par with Turkmenbashi. The Italian senators don't differ much from them.

In general, one should bear in mind that western politicians and diplomats are normal people, who have formed their own ideas of what is good and evil, with their own likes and dislikes. If the diplomatic protocol requires them to send a dictator a greeting telegram on the occasion of some national holiday, it does not necessarily mean that in their heart they admire his rule.

What do you tell the people about the situation in Kazakhstan? If this is not a secret, of course. Perhaps, you have to keep details of such contacts a secret?

- The democratic policy, in contrast to dictatorial one, is public. When a trip of the delegation of our party or a group from the Forum of Democratic Forces ends, we publish a press release. We send letters to our associates to inform them about the negotiations' progress. After the Central Asian Forum of Democratic Forces was established, we have extended this correspondence to our colleagues in the neighbouring countries.

Here is the latest example: recently Amirzhan Kosanov and Gulzhan Yergaliyeva visited Berlin, Bonn, and Cologne. They will tell their associates and the Kazakh press about their meetings in foreign ministry, other ministries and foreign policy centres. However, doubts remain whether the progovernmental papers or the papers controlled by the "family" would publish those materials, and whether the controlled TV channels would air the news of that.

As to all our international contacts in general, we have been talking, first of all, about the political situation in Kazakhstan. It arouses widespread interest. Everyone realizes that the huge country is on the verge of historical changes. People in the West want to know if it is possible to ensure the peaceful transfer of power and guarantee president Nazarbaev safety in exchange for his voluntary quitting the political scene.

The days of " sovereign dictators " are gone. They pose a threat to the peoples of their countries and to the whole world. Saddam Hussein in Iraq is the best proof of that. Dictators can not live without wars, without conflicts. In our region they are ready to quarrel with their neighbours, the strong tend to solve border disputes at the expense of the weak. Water resources are scarce in Central Asia, and one can easily imagine how great the temptation is for former communist party boss, now president, to stage a tiny victorious war over water. That's why the world community watches closely the crisis in Kazakhstan. It will not stand by idly if the situation gets critical.

A conference of democratic forces is to be held in Almaty. It will be devoted to the 10th anniversary of Kazakh independence. What would you tell its participants if you could return to the country freely?- This conference may become a milestone in the political development of the country if it becomes a truly free tribune. The Forum of Democratic Forces of Kazakhstan, which sponsores the event, is doing an important job. It's only vital not to allow the event to turn into a formality and repeat the pattern of many official sessions.

Democratic leaders and activists are significant figures, not extras. They should have an opportunity to voice their concerns, tell what is important in their opinion, not in the opinion of officials in the presidium.

As to me, I would give a short talk. In this talk, I would try to analyse possible mechanisms of future transfer of power in Kazakhstan. This is a key political question. We may endlessly discuss the results of past years' development, criticize them, or complain about the opportunities missed. But it all does not make any sense without a program of actions for the near future.

Some fresh opposition members consider regional elections as the greatest possible demand. Their argument are as foolows: first to achieve this goal, after that - another one, after that, hopefully, the democracy will be build. Such attitude is either naive or cautious to the point of cowardice. After a series of 1999 false elections, the people would think: why vote, if the results are rigged. Akims (heads of regional adinistrations) will control their own elections. With current authorities, current constitution, current laws, current situation regarding the media, and current outrage, the nation would get the same puppet akims as we have got members of parliament as a result of the parliamentary pseudo-elections.

Three years ago, in my book "The Right to Choose" I raised a question concerning regional elections. At that time, the Nazarbayev's authority was indisputable, and the idea seemed so bold that they burnt the book out of fear. Now this idea is shared by all the citizens. I believe it would be a very weak political move to limit ourselves to just declaiming it.

It does not mean that you are against the regional election debates, does it?

- There is nothing to debate! We do not debate whether we should wash our hands before a meal or not, do we? It is necessary to choose everyone: akims, presidents, deputies, judges. This is ABC, a democratic state's multiplication table. Democratic, mind you. What we should discuss now is how to quickly and without violence build such a democratic state. This requires ideas and political will.

Nowever in the world has dictatorship transformed into democracy freely. It's absurd to expect that there could be democracy at the level of towns, and at the same time the arbitrariness and dictatorship of the family at the center. Five years' struggle for town administrations elections, then another five years of struggle for elections in oblasts, another five years of fighting for a normal parliament, then - for fairly elected president... We shall approach the civilized community no earlier than in 2030 then.

Perhaps, common people do not understand many things quite well, but they do feel everything. Especially, they feel coward ideas and actions. If someone wants to just blackmail current authorities to merge with them once again afterwards, he runs a great risk. If the crisis repeat, neither the people nor the democratic opposition will come to this person's rescue. We can not and are not going to prevent anyone from pursueing such policy. We are not his colleagues, nor his rivals. Let them compete with Peruashev or Tereshchenko in such "sports".

When we speak about crisis in Kazakhstan we proceed from that fact that it really exists. But part of MPs and propresidential parties assure that there is no crisis at all. What has happened will soon disappear. Others speak not of crisis, but of a plot or even attempted assasinations.

- And Nursultan Nazarbayev say both are right. He assures the founders of the Kazakhstan's Democratic Choice that he fully supports them. After that he fires them and supports the silliest statement of the prime minister who almost calls on to eliminate the young reformers physically. He fires Rakhat Aliyev as the Security Committee official, and then secretly removes Marat Tazhin. The president thinks he has outwitted everyone, however, it appears to be what in dominoes is called "double blank". If this is not a full-scale crisis, what it is then?

One should correct Kazakh journalists, though, who haste to call the current events a "political crisis." For a political crisis, the country still has to move further, it has to obtain a political basis, parties and public policicians. Today we can speak of the crisis of power only, about Nazarbayev's loosing his basic support - the republican-level officials.

The president is concerned only about how to protect the family and transfer his power to them. Everyone realizes that national interests are alien to his thoughts. Another graft scandal involving ten million dollars in bribe, given to Nazarbayev by a businessman from South Korea, has once again shown the amount of his decency.

Besides, Nursultan Nazarbaev has been facing a strong personal crisis. Like any person, he grows old and weak. He finds it increasingly difficult to be master of himsef, let alone the nation. The authorities have developed what I call the "administrative dyspoea" when they find it difficult to implement their own decisions.

For a long time already, Nazarbayev has been in a conflict with the nation. Now he has come into conflict with his own bureaucracy because was unable to receive signals of danger even from his closest allies. Nazarbayev is no longer able to give his associates a hope for safe future. He will get increasingly hard to deal with, more difficult, more dangerous. Those in the executive branch clearly see the danger as well as the entire picture.

The incumbent president is facing a serious psychological problem - he has lost international reputation and is unable to come to terms with this. He is depressed by his failures on the international arena, the crash of his "multivector policy", failures of his numerous initiatives, the refusal to be admitted to the Council of Europe, clumsy attempts to get hold of the post of UN Secretary General or a Nobel Prize for Peace.

Doesn't Nursultan Nazarbayev's visit to the U.S. prove that his foreign policy is sometimes successful?

- A presidential visit to another country is not a success or a failure, it is routine work. Like it does not considered a success for a football team to go to another place to play a game. If the team wins, this is a success. If it loses, this is a defeat. Last year Nazarbayev visited Spain, France, Greece, Croatia, Norway, the Great Britain and God knows what other countries. What next? What is the result? How many agreements of nationwide importance has he concluded? What friut has this brought to the country? What opportunities have it opened up for domestic business, for example? The answer is obvious. What he is engaged in is called political tourism.

His recent trip to Berlin is especially characteristic. Nazarbayev, his ministers, and a whole plane of Kazakh businessmen spent in the German capital three days and signed not a single important document. President should be ashamed of wasting other people's time and public funds spared for the visit.

If Nazarbayev has nothing to offer foreign governments, why they invite him?

- Everyone familiar with diplomatic service knows that when foreign affairs ministry of some country asks foreign ministry of another country to receive their president, the request is turned down only in case these countries are on the brink of war. The U.S. is visited by leaders of all countries but Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro or Kim Chong-Il. The latter, however, is likely to come there too as soon as he stops to build rockets. Irani president is welcomed in Europe, etc. In Central Asia, only Turkmenbashi does not travel abroad, but the situation with him is more or less clear.

During our talks at foreign policy departments and international organizations, we, the opposition members, always urge the officicals not to ignore Nazarbayev, not to make him turn into another Kim Chong-Il, not to isolate Kazakhstan. On the contrary, foreign governments should meet with him to annul the results of the rigged elections and the unfair elections legislation.

10 days prior to Nursultan Nazarbayev's visit to Washington, leaders of three opposition parties - Azamat, People's Congress and Republican People's Party - went to Washington, were they had talks at the Department of State and the Congress. You, Yermurat, were among them, and basing on the first-hand experience, can tell about the nature of the talks held there yourself. The fact that high-ranking members of administration had invited you, welcomed you and discussed with you questions that could be raised in their discussions with Nazarbayev, speaks volumes.

Here, in Washington, I've heard an opinion that the situation in Kazakhstan is not as bad as it is in neighbouring countries: Karimov has jailed thousands of political prisoners, in Tadjikistan political opponents are being killed, Felix Kulov is behind bars...

- Such an opinion does exist. It is being spread primarily by Kazakh diplomats. I was told by congressmen that ambassadors and the minister come to their offices to apologize for the regime's "behavior," promise to right everything sometime and never fail to emphasize that presidents in neighboring countries are by far more murderous.

Recently I spoke at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace. When asked as to who of the Central Asian dictators were better, I asked a counter-question: "Who do you find better, Saddam Hussein or Bokassa? One gassed the Kurds, and the other literally devoured his opponents as he was a cannibal. With whom would you prefer to live and work side by side?" They laughed in reply.

Addressing western leaders, we reiterate: do sit with Nazarbayev at negotiation table and demand that he observes some elementary norms of civilized society! In doing so, you should avoid the primitive logic that Nazarbayev is better than Niyazov because there is no barbarous personality cult in Kazakhstan. It's not thanks to Nazarbayev's efforst, this is thanks to the efforts of the people of Kazakhstan. We prevent him from catching up with his colleague "for life".

Getting back to home affairs, how could the situation in Astana develop, in your opinion? Speaking about not the "young reformers" from Kazakhstan's Democratic Choice but about the "old reformers" like Marat Tazhin, for instance, or Nurtai Abykayev: why have they run out of patience and stood against the family? For long years were they absolutely loyal to the president and his family.

- The nature of Astana's conflict is obvious to all: amid the power struggle within the Nazarbayev family, members of the administrative elites split, and a group of high-ranking officials attempted to remove the president's senior son-in-law from the scene. President Nazarbaev first put up with the behavior of his closest asociates - the "conspirators". But Rakhat Aliyev declared through the media, which he controls, that he had turned to the U.S. lawyers for protection. Aliyev's father-in-law realized it was a threat, and his son-in-law was ready to give evidence to the U.S. justice concerning high-level corruption in Kazakhstan. On the other hand, Sara Nazarbayev stepped in to ask for the husband of her beloved daughter and persuaded Nazarbayev not to estrange him so that his grandsons had a father. Nazarbayev gave up and appointed Aliev to guard his body.

Later, as far as I know, the entire family did their best to compromise Tazhin and Sarsenbayev in order that the president removed them from their posts. For some time he resisted their attempts but later gave up once again. The next reshuffle in the National Security Committee shows that bureaucrats have not won the day yet. We are likely to see soon Rakhat Aliyev returning to the National Security Committee. Like the two generals who by turns replace one another in the defense ministry and have become a laughing stock for the whole world.

This is the level at which major personnel decisions are taken in Kazakhstan... Is this politics? It is a vulgar "family quarrel" in which a huge country has to take part.

The conflict between the bureaucracy in a normal sense of this word, that is, between managers and the Nazarbayev family was predetermined from the very beginning. It's because an official is judged by the efficiency of his decisions, while in family the relations are based on love, family bonds, common children, and so on. In the family, the father can not "fire" his son or his daughter because the son is stupid or the daughter is greedy. He has to love them and accept them as they are. Some poor parents have to bear and love their children - drug addicts, prostitutes or criminals. But society, state machine, ministries and departments may not tolerate inefficient managers and for the sake of self-preservation they should get rid of them.

One can imagine the Tazhin's or Nurtai Abykayev feelings, who saw that absolute fidelity was already not enough, that the family strives to occupy all government positions. Just look at the logic of recent appointments: Narikbayev who repeatedly proved loyal to Nazarbayev has been replaced as chairman of the Supreme Court by a Nazarbayev family member. Khitrin, devoted and obedient like a dog, has been replaced by yet another relative.

At evening tea, Sara Nazarbayev makes her husband remove and appoint high-level government officials. This is a shame for the country! Senior Kazakhs condemn this in principle. The young realize that career ambitions should be fergotten for good, of course unless they marry the president's youngest daughter or his nieces.

If president Nazarbaev is compos mentis, he should realize the danger that the conflict between his family and the state machine poses to him personally.

- Should have understood, I believe this is a more correct way to express it. But he has not seen it. It is ofter the case with elderly people: they so much want to maintain peace in the family that they are ready to yield any point only to ensure that no one annoys them with blandishment and hysterics. As far as I know, his immediate entourage repeatedly suggested that Nazarbayev send Rakhat Aliyev and his family abroad. Now he missed the chance. Hardly any country would accept him or his wife as ambassador.

President Nazarbaev keeps saying that, like anyone else, his children have every right to do business or work for the government. Indeed, the son of George W. Bush has become the president...

- Even in Soviet times, leaders did not allow themselves to promote their relations to leadership roles, especially, to prepare any successors. Nazarbayev should remember the laws of the party nomenclature, most part of his life he had lived by those laws.

When in Washington, Nazarbayev could ask George W. Bush, Jr. how he became the president 8 years after his father quit politics. Supposing, Nazarbayev go off the stage too, and 8 years later Rakhat Aliyev or Dariga Nazarbayev run for president. Do you believe they are able to win at least regional elections without the pressure from their father? Even if the election will take place in Chemolgansk district, this "democratic lab" a la Nazarbayev.

As for the right to work, the president's children undoubtedly are entitled to it. When my cabinet took the decision to establuish a government news agency Khabar, the president named Dariga to the the post of its director. I believe, she had defended dissertation by that time, something about public service...

I asked her to come for a talk and explained the agency's task to her: to inform the public of activities of the executive branch and the progress of economic and social reforms, to make privatization processes and international contracts transparent and clear. Such a modest agenda had the division at that time. Dariga Nazarbayev herself was very modest, she did not sing songs from the stage.

Later, with the support and on behalf of her father she literally crushed the government TV and radio company and used the Kazakh taxpayers money to build her own private media empire. The bravest members of parliament fail to request an audit check of Khabar to find out where had disappered billions of tenge and hundred millions of dollars earned on commercials. MPs just wast to learn whom Dariga Nazarbayev has sold half of the state television and radio company, and where is the money paid for the half.

That is the result of the work of just one family member under the supervision of her father - the president. But Nazarbayev has got two more daughters, a wife, nephews, brothers, etc. Enough to bring to ruin even the rich state like Kazakhstan.

Do you believe that these very considerations have made the founders of Democratic Choice give their voice? Don't they have ant mercenary interests of their own?

- Society wonders why each of the rebels has made up his mind to take part in this initiative. There can be no simple answers t that. Some are afraid of persecution and fear to lose property because of their confrontation with the sons-in-law. What is known for sure is that against some members of the Democratic Choice movement, their relatives or friends criminal cases have been opened on some far-fetched charges, including contract murders. These people realise that they can only protect themselves and their relatives in independent court which is possible only in a democratic state.

Someone just can't bear to see the economy stand still or move back, people impoverish, and declarations replace reforms. Some do not want to be held responsible in future for the financial and investment manipulations of the ruling family, they do not want to vise the irregularities and shame of secret redistribution of property, oil licences and many more.

Consider just one example, the sale of former savings bank Halyk to members of the same Nazarbayev family for a ridiculous sum - one fifth of the public funds spent on the bank's sanation. This trick has made current finance minister, vice-premier and the national bank's chairman think about what they would say in court soon.

There could be many motives behind this. In any case, the logic of life will force young reformers join the ranks of real opposition. They will have to consider the question of removing Nazarbayev and his family from power. The fact that the "rebels" dare not say a single word against the president yet is quite understandable. They hope they will manage to tell him into gradual reforms.

Like in a Russian fairy tale about the turnip: bureaucrats have set up a party, it started to grow, it has grown very big and won the parliamentary elections... That won't work! I know this from experience. After I resigned as a premier and returned in the country, I tried to avoid criticising president Nazarbayev. I presumed that with the help of businessmen from the Union of Industrialists and Businessmen I would manage to gradually push the authorities to democratic reforms. I failed...

What will, in your opinion, is expecting leaders of the Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan in the near future?

- Their fate will be hard, I have learnt it from experience better than anyone else in Kazakhstan. The authoritarian regime is always vengeful and stupid. It works against itself, but can not help this. A voice of reason does not exist for the regime.

I believe that despite the presidential press-secretary mumble about a single team, the young refrmers will be persecuted very soon in earnest. Some of the today's trubunes would break down when they face the danger of being jailed, and sign a letter where they will say they deeply regret their behavior and assure of their love of the president. The text of the letter will be drawn up for them.

I have a sample of similar letter in my archive, they suggested that I sign it in exchange for the post of prime minister. Naturally, I flung this sheet of paper in the teeth of the person who had come to suggest this to me. One day this masterpiece of servile creativity will be published and its author unmasked. It contained the words about the "great mistake", "repentance and gratitude to Nazarbayev", and "the happiness that the work under his supervision gives in any capacity"...

If you happen to read something of the kind signed by someone of the young reformers, you should not be surprised: its author is still at Nazarbayev's side. Not every person is strong enough to resist government pressure. But Kazakh democratic opposition will defend founders of the Democratic Choice anyway. We will fight for the safety of these people, we shall use all our connections in the international community to do so.

Young reformers, as you call them, have not said a word to support you personally. Though all of them came into power at the time you headed the government. Moreover, some of them were on the side of prosecution during your trial last August. Don't this disappoint and worry you?

- I have been engaged in Kazakh politics long enough to know very well every its player. With some of these people I have personal contacts, with a larger part - just professional. Today it's hard to charm or disappoint me. By the way, the man I was most fascinated and, accordingly, most disappointed with was Nursultan Nazarbaev. I have coped with it, and now I can easily cope with any other disappointment. The last thing I need is someone's personal support or someone's gratitude "for life". We are adult and pragmatic people who know that there are neither eternal friends or eternal enemies. At present stage, the main thing for us all is to create conditions for normal political and economic activities in Kazakhstan.

As to the testimonies in the trial and false evidence, one can imagine those people were pressurised, persuaded, blackmailed, threatened to be brought to trial too, etc... Some individuals broke down. I am positive, under similar circumstances I will not give false evidence publicly, nor behind a special screen like it happened in the Supreme Court. But I am a different person.

The question of "personal support" is not of importance, it is even harmful. One should not support persons, but ideas, policies, public forces that pursue definite purposes. In the United Democratic Party, which we have decided to establish together with my opposition colleagues, I do not claim the post of chairman or secretary general. We shall struggle for posts later in fair nationwide elections. Meanwhile, we have the sole purpose of removing the Nazarbayev regime from our state body.

The Republican People's Party and its allies discuss outloud your plan of actions to put democracy back on rail in Kazakhstan. This plan consists of 15 steps. The first step sounds like this: "President shoud resign." Some may call this document a plan of coup d'etat.

- No coups are discussed nationwide. They are prepared in the calm of studies. This document has been drawn up not only by me, its authors are most talented opposition members. We are offering society and the international community a "nationwide plan of political reforms." This is the plan of putting Kazakhstan back on track of democracy, restoring its state system ruined under the Nazarbayev rule.

Kazakhstan may give the world an example of how a mature society performs the operation for removal of the malignant tumour of authoritarianism. Recently the peoples of Peru and Indonesia got rid of their dictators Fujimori and Suharto. Our plan suggests a agradual, peaceful and absolutely legal redistribution of power and carrying out government reforms. We have worked out a way to do so as democratically as possible, with participation of the world public. From the very beginning, at the stage of discussion and adoption of the Nationwide Plan, we should secure the support of the OSCE, the Council of Europe, and the CIS. During the transition period, these organizations will become guarantors of stability, they will monitor the fairness and transparency of the process and will be able to oppose any attempts of abusing power by either branches of power.

Nobody can name the national plan an extremist one. It takes into account the interests of every authority group, and, which is most important, the interests of the public. Please note how thoroughly the steps to prevent anarchy have been considered in the plan. The president resigns and in strict accordance with the constitution his place is taken by Senate chairman. Akims continue to perform their duties until local electiosn are over. Executive functions are transferred to the technical government. The transition authorities - from president to akims - know when their powers expire. Parties, individual politicians, national and regional leaders - everyone know the timetable of the forthcoming elections, have an opportunity to organize, mobilize themselves and take part in the race.

Clearly, no one of those who have worked out the plan of political reforms, has provided for any personal privileges. The Senate's chairman becomes interim president, members of both chambers of parliament retain and even greatly improve their influence. Akims go on with their activities. We are planning to unconditionally sacrifice one body - the Constitutional Ccouncil, this ugly body, set up for unknown purposes. But hardly anyone but poor Khitrin would feel sorry for it.

The nationwide plan has been intensively discussed at our meetings with representatives of foreign governments and countries. It has gained the support of our partners abroad.

Aren't you afraid that the support of this plan in the West will make Russia support president Nazarbaev or any alternative force?

All this apply to old alternatives, the logic of the past century. Russia for us is the West. In the new world, Russia is part of the West. No less than Europe or America it needs stable and predictable neigboring states.

There are many reasons for this, among them is the reason that millions of ethnic Russians live in Kazakhstan, and only democracy could guarantee their right to good living.

Capitalizing on contradictions between Russia and the West has been the game that dictators love best. Even African leaders used to play it: they said they were building socialism and demanded that the USSR provided them with weapons and loans. Later they demanded the same from the West in exchange for breaking off relations with the Soviets.

Not long ago in his interview to the Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper President Nazarbaev suggested that Kazakhstan and Russia join their efforts to fight globalization. Prior to that, he attempted to set up a new wold politics pole and make friends with the Taliban. Now he will try to convince everybody that he wholeheartedly supports and shares the ideas of the antiterrorist community. He simultaneously offers to set up a sort of a new OPEC within the CIS and attempts to direct Kazak oil in the way opposite to Russia - to Iran. Such a "maneuver" makes people just shrug.

Two years ago the Republican People's Party and the Forum of Democratic Forces submitted a plan of a nationwide dialog which required participation of the president. Nazarbayev ignored the plan. Now you are submitting a nationwide plan of political reforms which does not involve Nazarbayev. What would you do if this project shares the fate of its predecessor?

- The idea of a nationwide dialog lived a remarkable life in Kazakhstan. It has played its important role in the nation's political history. When it was proposed for the first time, the entrire propresidential army attacked it, shouting, "How dare you? Who do you imagine you are? The authorities will never discuss anything with you!" However, the Forum of Democratic Forces kept repeating this requirement at all levels. In December 1999, Nazarbayev finally had to sign in Washington with vice president Gore the protocol that required him to start the nationwide dialog.

Nazarbayev believed that he had fooled both the Americans and his countrymen. But later he discovered that he had fooled himself. He started simulating national dialog in the form of a round table on election legislation. Now he would have been happy to have the opposition at the negotiations table in order to prove that democratic process in the country was in progress. But it was too late. We proceed from the idea that Nazarbayev and his junta have missed their chance.

Now the opposition should not sit down with him at the negotiation table he because he represents nobody but his family. We are ready to negotiate with administrative elites, with heads of force departments and business circles. Nazarbayev has turned down the idea of a national dialog, and the turn of these groups has come to accept responsibility for changes. If the republican elite turns out to be unable to do so and the world sees it, the turn of regional elites will come. Then the opposition will propose a plan intended for regional and national groups' leaders. Life goes on, noone can stop it or turn it back.

One way or the other, we will not allow to reverse our country back to the Middle Ages, to the inheritance of khan's power or any other rudiments. The world will not tolerate this either. The neighboring countries have shown what regress of this kind brings to the nation. In Kazakhstan, there will be no golden monuments to the president rotating after the sun. We promise this.

It is always easier to speak about what the country shouldn't be like than what it should be like. It's clear that gold colossuses in the impoverished towns are barbarism. But there are no such monstrosities in Kazakhstan.

- Not only gold statues are a barbarism. Nazarbayev's many residences, tawdry and expensive, his amasingly provincial architecture plan of Astana - isn't this barbarism too? The Kazakh president has more armored limousines than the president of any not so poor country. Switzerland, for example.

Unfortunately, Kazakhstan will not become Switzerland if Nazarbayev parts with half of his Mercedes cars. What should we do if some people run for president only to occupy Nazarbayev's place to take his palaces, limos, planes, and oil revenues?

- One should again refer to the National Plan for the answers to these questions. Three years ago we were romantic enough to believe that free elections alone would bring about democracy. We created the movement "For Fair Elections" which was abolished, some of us were convicted in courts, and me among them. Now it is clear that a wide array of measures should be taken to bring the country back to the republican form of government in the true sense of this word - "republic."

These measures are reflected in the National Plan. The division of powers, elected and and removable authorities and legislature, freedom of political activity, independent press, etc - all this is to guarantee that no group will ever get exclusive control over politics or national economy. Those who hope to remove the Nazarbayevs to get hold of the control of oil, banks or state machinery themselves, must forget about these chimeras right away.

When a question compares Kazakhstan to Switzerland, the answer seems to be predetermined from the beginning. We will never be able to reach them. And it appears that we should not even try to. But let's compare Kazakhstan not to Switzerland, but to Lithuania or Estonia. During the decade of independence, these countries have built an effective democratic system. The standard of living is by far higher than in Kazakhstan. Their reputation and stability are so high that the question of their admittance to the European Union is being considered.

Like in Kazakhstan, they are inhabited by former Soviet people, have inherited the same old Soviet infrastructure, but less factories or mines. The Baltic states do not possess the tiny part of the riches that Kazakhstan boasts of. However, due to hard work, their citizens have managed to reach the standards of living that president Nazarbaev promises we would reach in 30 years.

The secret in that the system of government and the economy in the Baltic states, like in other countries of the socialist camp, have been build on truly liberal and democratic principles. Presidents and premieres change as a result of elections when society needs this. No politician would ever say there, like Noursultan Nazarbaev does say, that horses are not changed in the midstream. First, because nobody asks the horses. Second, if a horse has failed to cross the river in a decade, it's time for the horse to go to the stall.

What post do you consider for yourself in the future Kazakhstan? That of the president or you would agree to become prime minister?

- I am convinced that Kazakhstan does not need the president with the broad powers like today. As a result, other branches of power are paralysed. This has happened because Nazarbayev, as the Russian saying has it, wishes to be a cork to every bottle, and manages to cope with none. The president should be the guarantor of stability, law and order, rights of citizens and entire population groups. There are renowned figures whom I can imagine in this capacity, not only myself. The main thing is that this person should be elected in free and fair elections.

As for the prime minister, I would agree to occupy this post only if the government is formed by the parliamentary majority, which in its turn is elected in fair and free elections. I am convinced that government will need me, my experience. I mean not the theoretical knowledge or former experience. All the years of emigration I have been keeping in touch with my associates both open and secret. My position of an opposition politician gives me a chance, among all, to be close to common people, to study their concerns better than persons who hold official posts in Astana.

By the way, in a new government the premiere and ministers would have to work like slaves on a plantation because Kazakh economy is suffering a steep decline. The confidence of international investors, businessmen at home, and all Kazakh citizens can be regained only if the cabinet consists of first-class professionals, if it have the political will to implement its decisions.

There is specific attitude to political posts in Kazakhstan, which is the legacy of the Soviet times: the career goes only downward, from the top. If a person failed to be elected to the Politbureau, his life is ruined completely, the secretary general would never agree to become a mere secretary of some regional commitee, etc. However, in democracies prime ministers may lead governments, after that work as ministers, then be elected to parliaments, then again become premieres, and so on. It's interesting to live and work.

In Kazakhstan they hold on to power under the president as if they will perish without him. Kasymzhomart Tokayev has lost his cabinet, but he will never resign. Such a situation is unthinkable in civilized countries. However, his recent statements have proved that he has got even a vaguer idea of what civilized politics is than anyone has imagined. Until he became prime minister, everyone had considered Tokayev an intelligent person who wears glasses. It turns out that simple things like glasses can sometimes mislead people.

Perhaps, Nursultan Nazarbaev should urgently start wearing glasses?

- It's too late. He has lost the game. He has been whitewashed, not outpointed.

Yermurat BAPI