Kazakhstan has previously refused the position of vice president due to clear political circumstances. Now Kassym-Jomart Tokayev proposes to restore this institution in a different format. However, as the first vice president claims, 25 years ago he explained why such an idea turned out to be unsuitable for the developing power system, as noted in the article exclusive.kz.
The position of vice president was created in Kazakhstan in the early 1990s, when a new power was being formed. In 1990, the Supreme Council established the post of president, and soon the vice president appeared.
This structure resembled the American model, where the vice president is the second person in the state and a potential successor to the president, which contributes to political continuity and stability.
The first vice president of the Kazakh SSR was Sergey Tereshchenko, but after the first presidential elections in December 1991, this position was taken by Erik Asanbayev, a significant figure in parliament and government. Tereshchenko was appointed prime minister.
Just a few days later, Kazakhstan became independent, and the vice presidency acquired new meaning within the framework of a constitution aimed at transitioning from the Soviet system to presidential rule.
The 1993 constitution granted the vice president certain powers, including substituting for the president in his absence and carrying out his assignments. This position was conceived as a means of ensuring continuity of power and preventing political crises.
Nevertheless, the practical application of this position in early Kazakhstan did not lead to the creation of independent political influence. The vice president became a nominal figure, which was perceived as a threat to the development of strong presidential power. The title and concept of this position suggested that the president was not without alternatives, and a successor was possible within the power system.
In the mid-1990s, during a constitutional reform, the vice presidency was abolished, and the Constitutional Court was also eliminated, which strengthened presidential power and changed the architecture of governance.
Erik Asanbayev, the first and only vice president, explained shortly before his death that this position was not intended to be formal but rather an important part of the political system.
"An obstacle to personal power"
In 2000, a large interview with Erik Asanbayev was published in the project "Witnesses," and in 2009, Exclusive.kz reposted this text. Today, this interview is perceived as the political testament of a person well acquainted with the mechanisms of power.
Discussing the reasons for the abolition of the vice presidency and the possibility of its revival, Asanbayev noted that this position was conceived as an element of political architecture, not as an auxiliary position.
"Ideally, the vice presidency should facilitate the transition of power and serve as an obstacle to the emergence of personal power or dictatorship. This can be successfully implemented in a country with a high political culture," he said.
Thus, the vice presidency was initially viewed as an element of a system of checks and balances, which was meant to prevent the concentration of power in one person's hands.
However, Asanbayev emphasized that such a model requires a suitable political environment, which was lacking in post-Soviet countries, leading to the collapse of the idea of the vice presidency.
"In the post-Soviet space, the triangle 'president – vice president – prime minister' turned out to be unviable. But, in my opinion, real power belongs to the prime minister, and his integrity is of immense importance to society," Asanbayev added.
This formula describes the problems of early post-Soviet governance, where various centers of power emerged without clear delineation of authority, leading to conflicts and struggles for influence.
Asanbayev emphasized that, despite the formal significance, he had no real power. He pointed out the main flaw of the position – the ambiguity of powers and the lack of mechanisms for their implementation.
"The powers of the vice president in our Constitution, following the American example, turned out to be vague and lacked a mechanism for implementation..."
Thus, as early as 2000, Asanbayev acknowledged that the idea of the vice presidency was correct, but the political system was not ready to accept it.
"The desire to enter history"
Asanbayev also spoke about the transformation of post-Soviet elites and how power can destroy institutional constraints.
"It cannot be said that the violation of moral principles began with the first steps. Rather, many experienced a duality of goals: on the one hand, the desire to leave a mark in history, and on the other – to use opportunities for illegal enrichment. It all depended on what prevailed in each person..."
It is important to note that Asanbayev did not reduce the problem to the personal qualities of leaders but emphasized the deformation of the power system itself, where the rhetoric of reforms and personal interests competed.
Asanbayev refused to accept the opinion that politics is a dirty business.
"I disagree with the notion that politics is necessarily a dirty business. This opinion is supported by those who want to justify their unsightly actions. Politics is a high profession of serving one's people. Open politics has always commanded respect," he asserted.
He emphasized that politics, as a "high profession," requires institutions of checks and balances. The absence of such structures he considered the main problem of post-Soviet regimes. The vice presidency, in this context, was supposed to serve as a limitation on the concentration of power.
Reasons for the abolition of the vice presidency
Officially, the position of vice president was abolished during a constitutional reform aimed at "optimization." However, as subsequent events showed, the real reasons for this decision were political.
In the article "Erik Asanbayev: the one who brought Nazarbayev to power while remaining in his shadow" from 2023, Exclusive.kz examines in detail why Asanbayev came to be perceived as a threat. The position of vice president itself symbolized the possibility of political succession, which did not suit Nazarbayev.
In the early 2000s, Nazarbayev needed strong presidential power, but not just strong, but unilateral. In this model, any formal "steps" to the presidential chair became potential threats, even if their holders did not aspire to power. The existence of an institutional substitute for the head of state was perceived as a limitation on the presidential vertical.
As a result, the vice presidency became a symbol of legal and political alternatives, hinting at the possibility of transferring power not only through elections but also through institutional mechanisms. Therefore, both the position of vice president and the Constitutional Court were eliminated, which removed the possibility of institutional competition.
After the abolition of the position, Asanbayev found himself in diplomatic "exile" and returned to Kazakhstan only in 2000, becoming a pensioner, and four years later he passed away.
Differences between Tokayev's vice president and Nazarbayev's
The modern discussion shows that it is not the institution that Asanbayev spoke of that is returning, but rather a completely different version of it.
In the 1990s, the vice president was an elected figure and was viewed as a successor, making him politically inconvenient for a system built around unilateral power.
In the new model, the vice president will be appointed, and his powers will be defined by the president.
Thus, he will no longer be seen as a potential successor and will not become part of the power transition system, but will be part of the presidential administration. This is not a return of the old institution, but the creation of a new position – an administrative deputy to the head of state, integrated into the existing governance system.
Ultimately, history returns, but in a different light. Instead of the system of checks and balances that Asanbayev spoke of, we see its distorted version, which does not limit personal power but merely adds another layer to the existing presidential system.
Therefore, today it is worth paying attention again to the words of a person who understood why this institution was needed: not for the convenience of power and its strengthening, but as a protection against the concentration of power in one person's hands and as a mechanism to prevent it from being locked onto one individual.
In one of the last fragments of the interview, Erik Asanbayev uttered a phrase that sounds almost prophetic: "A country without conscience is a country without a soul, and a country without a soul is a country doomed to perish."
In this logic, the "conscience" of the state is not an abstraction, but the ability of power to limit itself through institutions, avoiding the substitution of rules for personal will and the destruction of mechanisms of succession for the sake of convenience. And this meaning lies at the heart of the idea of the vice presidency, which may be lost behind the familiar name of the returning position.
