Nursultan Nazarbayev, very nearly eternal

David-M wrote:

"Kazakhstan? Where is it?"

You know that place on the map where you don't know what's there? It's there.

Terbish, don't show your stupidity by posting such comments - it will not take much efforts to collect some info on Kazakh history.

Gokturks used the term khan/khagan already in the 6th century, long before the Genghis Khan. And even Genghis Khan himself has nothing to do with today's Mongolia, there are more direct descendants of Genghis Khan among the Kazakhs than those among the Mongols. (btw, the title of Genghis derives from the Kazakh/Turkic word Tengiz - means "Ocean" or "Wide-Spread"; while his original name Temujjin derives from Turkic/Kazakh Temur/Temir which means "iron")

as for the article - "President Nazarbayev is extraordinarily popular, while the opposition is weak" (from the WikiLeaks cables - Dec 12/2010) - I completely agree with this statement, indeed I don't see any alternatives for the presidency in Kazakhstan at the moment; though, the author is right, he is 70 - and it's time to think about the legitimate successor

Maybe, for Kazakhstan role of Nazarbayev is, at strategical point, good. Namely, threat for unity of country is great Russian population. In last forty years Russian are decreasing from relative majority to minority of about 25% (for Stalin 1936 upgrading status of Kazakhstan from Russian to USSR republic was no important event). During 1990s every tray to go out from Russia would be risks. in prospective, for twenty years foreign policy of Kazakhstan may be autonomous. Great, but decreasing, role of Russian language is some kind of Russian influence, but formation of stable state and national identity is most important for Kazakh. It is similar to situation in Ukraine during the Kuchma, president who is win election as pro-Russian, but make great things for insulating Ukraine from Russian influence.

Kazakhstan? Where is it?

Really funny article. The author wants to persuade the reader that at the end of the day it is ok to have a authoritarian president who rules the country for more than 20 years and who continiously changes the Constitution using his puppet Parliament.
The structure of the arcticle itself is clear support to the above. Listing all the cons in the beginning, the author compares Nazarbayev regime to Karimov's Uzbekistan and tries to persuade the reader that it is his ruling that prevented Kazakhstan from Kyrgiz scenario.

Suggestion: Next time please draw the comparison line with North Korea. On that background Kazakhstan's regime would be seen even more better and might get more support from the Western reader.

ps. It would be funny to see such type of articles on Venezuela. Try to compare it to Afghanistan. And Chavez might be seen as a pretty decent ruler.

Kazakhs never been independent country before 1990. They should be thankful for Russian. It is not suitable sound that named him "Khan". "Khan" is also Mongolian word that means "great king" but Kazaks have not any decend raletaion with Mongolian. "Khan" is suitable word for Mongolians. Kazakhsatns also been small tribes they alwayse fighted each other.

The attempt to impose the word "eternal" on Nursultan Nazarbayev because his term could extend for thirty years in Kazakhstan appears to be another example of British interest in dominating the world's concept of self-government. As with some other times, this was under Saturn.

The contest for thirty years is an English ambition. A long history of usurpation precedes this understanding. England was more than coincidental in the appearance of thirty-year periods of conflict too many times in history for those coincidences to be called normal.

England invented the game in its own internal contest between Lancaster and York, the War of the Roses. After that, every time Neptune went round, somebody else had a thirty year war and it seems nobody knew why.

After the first of distant Neptune's 165-year orbits following War of the Roses, the Thirty Years War began. Conflicts over unknown problems that evidently arose from cosmology and probably hatched in Star Chamber, dominated Europe.

The next time was 1783. That's too exactly Neptune, as the action began earlier. The colonists were agitating for independence and freedom from English taxation. Results, though, were all in favor of the English speaking peoples. The Colonists declared Independence from the English Crown, a masterful move that guaranteed English language predominance in the United States. England could easily escape blame while France and Spain were driven out.

Another 165 years later was 1941, and the United States entered World War II. The War to End All Wars had begun just thirty years earlier, in 1914. Again, the world was dancing under Saturn. It's okay if the dancers know who's playing the tune.

Saturn and Jupiter were known since prehistory, and Rome was expert at dominating the Mediterranean with sophisticated strategies. Despite that it is ancient, some knowledge is still useful. In the modern world, though, all the cards should be on the table.

Kazakhstan has a right to keep its leader in office for a long time, even thirty years. If he is tolerable, it is an honor, and adds depth and continuity to the nation.

as Bismarck said Russia is like Ianus with two faces, asian one when it looks at Europe and vice versa. And though generally i am very sceptical of Russia, I must confess while in Kazakhstan I feel i can speak with sense only to Russians. Thus i would not treat them as threat but asset of the country.

There is always that danger of the Revival of the "Great Game of Central Asia" at the first sign of leadership weaknesses.

The Khan of the Golden Horde may still evoke memories particularly in Russia and Eastern Europe. However, the West could face worst Jihadi nightmare if the West is looking for Regime change of the Khan.

Seriously Economist, you really do need a comedy section. Otherwise some of our dear posters just might not 'get it'. Or if not, you could at least start the article with "Ladies and gentlemen, we introduce, the master of all living and steppe things, the ruler (and poss father?!) of Borat, the ventriloquist with a million voices (or whatever the population of K is), the one and only, handsome and posely, etc, etc...."

So much opinions got, whatsoever the truth is known only to the people of this great land. He is the only leader who prefer nation.

old habbits are hard to get rid of. So too will be Mr. Khan. Not good in the long run.

David-M, I would add that Kazakhstan is roughly the size of Argentina.

It’s common practice for the Orient leaders to stay in power forever no matter what you call them Presidents of Sheikhs. They usually change in case of natural death or coup. For Kazakhs not to get themselves involved in some sort of Kirgiz mess, Nursultan Nazarbayev is an ideal leader. The West likes him and this is oil-love with some natural gas flavor. There are many such authoritarian rulers, who cares. For example, Hosni Mubarak has been ruling Egypt since 1981. So what? Do we need yell and shout no democracy in Egypt? Practically all those mid east regimes are that way. What a boring life we would have if the entire world would be exercising Western values only!

So long the Hegemon can be effectively kept out of Kazakhtan, then it will not play be able to play game using the now mostly secular Kazakhs to turn them into pious Jihadis bent on destruction of the present Russian or Chinese so-called authoritarian Godless regimes.

I am constantly surprised by the sheer stupidity of some of the most brilliant minds of neocons strategic thinking like the following favorite adage "A friend of my enemy is automatically my enemy." The Khan is indeed a bosum friend of Czar Putin. I am afraid that the Hegemon is indeed seeking a Regime Change at the risks of creating social, political, military and unbelievably religious uncertainties in the new Great Game.

David-M wrote:

“Kazakhstan? Where is it”

Get on Jay Leno show on NBC and learn or go to youtube Jaywalking. He also gives a hint where Budapest is or Suez Canal.

"Live and let live" still means the world of it.

I would expect better from the Economist than implying that there is no harm in having the same ruler for 20+ years, with no credible opposition and a one-party parliament. Or is the article meant to be sarcastic, with Kazakhstan having been the chair of the OSCE in 2010 and all?