Last week, a delegation of international human rights organization “Reporters without Borders” visited Kazakhstan. Journalists were concerned about the closure of a number of newspapers, television channel, and the increasing incidence of attacks on journalists in Kazakhstan.

I was fortunate to be present at the meeting between Johann Bihr, head of Eastern European and Central Asian division of the international organization Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Anna Suleliak, head of the human rights division at RSF with Yermukhamet Yertysbayev, advisor to the President of Kazakhstan, and record their sincere dialogue.

Mechanisms of self-preservation are disabled

Johann Bihr: Yermukhamet Kabidenovich, do you believe that “the law on extremism” and the Criminal Code of the social discord naturally apply to journalists? Is it possible to accurately determine and limit the notion of these terms, if they are not spelled out in the law? It is interesting to know your personal opinion about why these laws are applied in judicial decisions in mass closure of newspapers in Kazakhstan?

Yertysbayev: That statement is unclear. As far as I know, the law has been applied directly to Kozlov and the newspaper “Respublika”. I do not advocate the use of the words “extremist” to our fellow citizens, but the issue of social discord is a big problem for Kazakhstan, Russia and all CIS countries. In the near future it may become even more acute, because social stratification is really growing, the gap between rich and poor hundreds or thousands of times higher than in other countries.

Therefore, this problem is more acute in our country, not in France. In Kazakhstan, for hundreds of thousands of people belonging to the poor, there is only one billionaire. And if any man, as did Mukhtar Ablyazov, calls for egalitarianism at Zhanaozen crisis, these statements are evaluated as extremist incitement of social hatred. Ablyazov gave examples of wages in dollars, comparing the $1,000 – 1,500 salary of workers with $150,000 salaries of management of oil companies. And this is a direct appeal against injustice, which became the cause of conflict.

Manipulation with earnings of representatives of different sectors of the population was a direct catalyst for the tragic outcome Zhanaozen events. Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan prohibits the incitement of social hatred. Why do we pay great attention to this problem? Because we have a tragic past. Since 1917, on the theory of the class struggle of Marx and Engels, the Soviet people were taught that rich people should not exist.

As a result, we are back for 200 years from Western countries in development, and nurtured people, who always complain about wealth and luxury of some and poverty of others. The masses do not understand the market economy, but easily erupt when they are asked to take away someone’s property.

Since the government’s political elite and business elite are very closely related, they have adopted laws against destructive forces that can influence the situation to return all back. Therefore, these laws were enacted. If a person calls to impose a heavy tax on all of our rich, this is one. But if the person sticks leaflets everywhere that calls to rob the houses, to take the property and divide it between the poor, then it is a call for disorder, chaos, civil war.

Personally, I believe that institute of legal experts and language experts must be employed in closing the newspaper “Vzglyad”, which would carefully analyze all the content of the newspaper. They could have found a couple articles that prove that the newspaper directly or indirectly called for social discord. I saw such material in this paper, but the court did not fully use its capacity and the evidential base is now under attack.

But I have read a material on the website of the “Republic”, which implicitly calls for the territorial division of the country, rising interethnic problems and questions of latent separatism in northern Kazakhstan. The article’s author, as always, is hidden under a pseudonym. And Petrushova, editor of the newspaper, removed the article from the website in half an hour, because it could be a reason to open a criminal case. However, there are times, when media frantically disconnects its mechanisms of self-preservation.

Personally, I have no authority

Johann Bihr: Are you willing to give advices to your boss in order to avoid similar decisions regarding the closure of newspapers and websites? These decisions cause outrage in the international community.

Yertysbayev: You know, I’m an advisor. Personally, I have no authority. For example, regarding the website Guljan.org, I have openly expressed my position on it wherever possible, including at the very top. And I managed to defend and protect this website. Guljan Yergaliyeva criticized senior officials, but it, in my opinion, was in the framework of the Constitution and freedom of speech. Therefore, we are doing some work in this direction.

Personally, I do not support closure of the newspaper “Respublika”. And I talk about it openly. They don’t have serious impact on the protest electorate. Why be afraid of criticism in the newspapers, if the majority of people voted for the President? I support the position of Thomas Jefferson that “newspapers even have the right to slander.” Because closing of newspapers always puts shadow on the image of the president and the country.

There, in the international community, no one will understand who and why finances newspaper. As far as I know, the “Republic” is financed not only by oligarch Ablyazov, there were a half dozen people in the country, who secretly gave money to the newspaper. In principle, even a criminal, who has the money, has the right to send it to any newspaper.

We do not condemn the sponsors of the press. And it is very easy being labeled as unpopular government because of closing the newspaper in the country. For 20 years of the sovereignty of our country, I published a lot of articles, and I prefer to do it in the opposition press, which was always willing to contact and collaboration. Understand that if the opposition press does not exist, I personally would be bored; there would be nothing to do.

Johann Bihr: Does your authority allow you to influence loyal decision-making?

Yertysbayev: I do not make decisions, and do influence them. I advise and publicly express my opinion. And this, by the way, often causes me very great inconvenience. I had a conversation with a very senior official, who accused me that I spoke publicly in support of the opposition press.

I’m not crazy enough to publicly support the closure of the newspaper. What will they say about us? I support the democratic methods, but cannot affect the prosecution, the courts, because they are independent branch of government.

One newspaper is more dangerous than two armies

Rozlana Taukina: In your opinion, the opposition and the state media have equal opportunities to work?

Yertysbayev: Of course not. And it’s obvious. We explain this with the transition period, when head of state had to build a market economy and the new political superstructure under the administrative-command system. Authority allocates billions of tenge from the budget to support the official press on government contract. This is the people’s money. We do not ask the voters who to give what.

We configure it ourselves. For the leader of the nation, for all of the elite it is very important to be able to control the entire political process and to convince the vast majority of the population to support the reforms. And from this point of view, the control of information area, especially the electronic media, is very important.

Do you know that Georgia and Ukraine there was only one independent channel, which created the opportunity to make a color revolution? Even in the collapse of the USSR, in my view, a key role was played by the media. 200 million viewers watched the TV show “Vzglyad” every Saturday with bated breath. Manipulating the public opinion, it is the media that created a dangerous situation of disobedience.

Johann Bihr: So you think that the media control is required in your state?

Yertysbayev: I don’t not mean anything. I am stating a fact and stating my position! I believe that we need to take a risk and give a genuine freedom to press. We need a regular dialogue, a regular contact between the presidential administration and all the editors of the media. Not in terms of censorship, but to make sure that the editorial policy would not lead to unpredictable consequences. Because the word is a powerful weapon. Even your Napoleon said: “A newspaper is more dangerous than the two armies.”

Rozlana Taukina: Yesterday, we learned about the closing of “Molodyojnaya gazeta” (Youth newspaper) in Zhezkazgan. Do you have this information?

Yertysbayev: Well, I think this is completely wrong method. If the newspaper criticizes the city administration or “Kazakhmys”, they are entitled by law to respond in the newspaper. This will be a civilized dialogue. Revocation of the license of the newspaper before the court hearing is not practiced in our country.

Law making it is not the law

Johann Bihr, Anna Souleliak: Anna is a reputable lawyer. She is concerned about a draft law on the establishment of the National Bar Association of the Republic of Kazakhstan. It is about creating a state board, which will be controlled by the Ministry of Justice. Independent Bar Association is one of the conditions of democracy, and Kazakhstan intends to break it?

Yertysbayev: I hear this for the first time. Does it mean that other lawyers, who will not be part of it, cannot practice the law? I think it is unlikely that the bill will be approved. It is against the Constitution. Under the Constitution, we are a democratic country. And the basis of democracy is pluralism, and this applies to all spheres of society – not only the electoral process, not only to the Parliament, not only to local authorities, but also to such activities as advocacy.

Of course, lawyers must obtain a license to practice law, but they remain independent. I believe that it will not be possible to regulate or close the independent panel of lawyers. At the preliminary stage, the minister of justice gathers all the experts, including independent lawyers, and hears everyone’s opinion on the bill, and their word is sometimes crucial. I’m telling you this as a professional, who has worked in government.

Johann Bihr, Anna Souleliak: There is still another bill that proposes reforms to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the death penalty. At the moment, Kazakhstan has moratorium on the death penalty, but a new bill introduces a list of the offenses for which the death penalty would be possible, and the list of crimes could rise to 90.

Yertysbayev: Where did you get this information? I do not know anything about them. I recently spoke with the legal department of the presidential administration, and know that there are no plans to restore the death penalty. We want to become a member of the Council of Europe, we are going to a very close approach to the European Union, so there is no way the death penalty is going to recover, despite the fact that the number of serious and heinous crimes has increased in Kazakhstan. Our country chooses a civilized way of punishment.

I think you have incorrect information. Even the Soviet Union had a much lesser number of crimes for which the death penalty was enforced. 90 kinds of crimes – it’s too much! I do not have such information. Moreover, you are talking about the law bill, and the adoption of the law is a very complicated the procedure. If the bill is unconstitutional, contrary to international obligations, even after the adoption of such a bill by the Parliament, the President has the right to veto the bill. I think that such proposals do not pass.

Johann Bihr, Anna Souleliak: Speaking of the legislative process, do you know at what stage are the draft laws on access to information and further decriminalizing of libel. Our concern are based on administrative responsibilities and huge penalties applied to the Kazakhstani journalists.

Yertysbayev: I, for example, a, for the adoption of these laws. And, despite the fact that many journalists are working for some oligarch, get money and produce ordered materials, I support democracy, competition. But I know that still there are people in power, who seek to keep the press under control through prohibitive laws.

I understand that we need to accelerate the adoption of laws that exist in the countries of the European Union. Authorities need to build relationships with the press. But this requires a corresponding increase in the political culture of both sides. I worked as a minister, headed the party, was a deputy, and I constantly fought against political opponents like Sergei Duvanov and Bulat Abilov.

There have been occasions, when I have met with people of Tony Blair, experts, and had debates with them, and they applauded me. But I do have certain obligations, the principle of working as a unified team. When I go to the head of state, he meets me in the halfway.

Johann Bihr: Can the Union of journalists and human rights organization “Adil Soz” convey their arguments through you in defense of Kazakh journalists?

Yertysbayev: We need a very strong Union of Journalists, and in our country it exists in name. In fact, there is no Union of Journalists. Journalists should have their labor union, they will be able to advocate and defend their rights. Their arguments are heard and amplified by the press.

Therefore, when the journalists themselves are mostly conformists, are satisfied with their salaries, they care neither about the freedom of speech, nor decriminalization, and the promotion of these ideas is delayed. Unfortunately, there are many dilettantes in journalism, who do not understand anything in it, intelligently do not meet modern requirements, but there are talented journalists gifted from nature. A lot depends on the journalists themselves.

Published with the consent of Johann Bihr

Interview recorded by Rozlana Taukina