Qurultay rising: Kazakhstan redefines Parliament in landmark reform - László Vasa

According to the expert, these reforms should be viewed as both a continuation and deepening of the constitutional changes introduced in 2022, as well as an ambitious attempt to redesign the institutional logic of the state following a period of acute political stress. The scale of the proposed changes is so extensive that they are comparable to the adoption of an entirely new constitution.

At the heart of this reform lies a strategic intent, says Dr. Vasa. He adds: “The declared formula of “Strong President – Influential Parliament – Accountable Government” reflects a conscious effort to preserve presidential authority, a strong presidential republic, while embedding it in a more structured system of checks and balances. This approach responds to both domestic lessons learned from the January 2022 unrest and international expectations regarding governance, stability, and predictability.”

One of the most symbolic and institutionally significant elements of the reform, in his words, is the proposed transition to a unicameral parliament, renamed as Qurultay. The choice of the name, according to Vasa, draws upon historical traditions of collective popular representation, while the reform itself aims to strengthen parliamentarism in a system long dominated by the executive branch.

“The expansion of the parliament’s powers in appointing members of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Audit Chamber, and the Central Election Commission, as well as its role in judicial appointments, is a meaningful attempt to institutionalize political accountability and oversight. Comparatively, this brings Kazakhstan closer to international constitutional practice, even if the presidential nature of the system remains firmly intact,” he highlights.

For Hungarian observers, Vasa notes, the reform inevitably invites comparison with Hungary’s constitutional experience. Hungary’s parliamentary republic limits executive power through parliamentary accountability and constitutional review.

“Kazakhstan’s reform,” the expert points out, “is not structurally moving in this direction; instead, it seeks to discipline the dominance of the executive through stronger institutions, not by changing the type of regime. This difference is crucial. Kazakhstan is not converging towards a Central European parliamentary model, but is developing a unique hybrid that reflects its political culture, elite structure, regional traditions, political cultural needs, and historical trajectory. In this sense, the reform adopts institutional tools familiar in Europe—constitutional judiciary, strengthened parliamentary oversight, consultative mechanisms—while embedding them in a presidential framework adapted to Eurasian realities.”

Vasa believes that the electoral dimension of the reform further illustrates Kazakhstan’s controlled approach to political development. The introduction of proportional representation in parliamentary elections strengthens the role of political parties and enhances their accountability to voters. Yet the exclusion of independent candidates at the national level ensures that political competition remains structured and manageable.

“This construction thus prioritizes stability and predictability over pluralism. It reduces the risk of fragmentation, but it also limits the emergence of truly alternative political forces,” the Senior Research Fellow at the Hungarian Institute of International Affairs says.

From the perspective of democratic development, Vasa emphasizes that the reform presents both opportunities and constrains. On the one hand, the expansion of parliamentary authority, the institutionalization of public consultation, and the constitutional recognition of digital rights represent clear steps toward modern governance. The proposed establishment of the Kazakh People’s Council as a national consultative body could further foster structured dialogue between the state and society, particularly in a multi-ethnic and regionally diverse country.

“On the other hand, however, historical experience in Central Europe offers a cautionary lesson: institutions alone do not guarantee democratic practice. Without genuine political autonomy and consistent implementation, even well-designed constitutional mechanisms risk remaining largely symbolic,” the expert underscored.

Dr. László Vasa stresses that Kazakhstan’s constitutional reform strengthens its political narrative at the international level.

“In the eyes of the European Union and especially Hungary, Kazakhstan appears as a reform-oriented, pragmatic partner, capable of gradual adaptation without destabilization. In the current geopolitical environment - characterized by war, sanctions and systematic rivalry - this situation has real strategic value. Constitutional reform thus functions not only as a domestic policy tool, but also as a foreign policy tool, strengthening Kazakhstan's profile as a responsible and predictable middle power in Eurasia,” he says.

Vasa also points to the need to asses the reforms with sobriety and realism. In his words, they are not mere cosmetic adjustments, but a serious attempt at institutional modernization aimed at strengthening state capacity, restoring legitimacy, and managing political participation in a controlled manner.

“Kazakhstan is not abandoning its presidential republic; it is seeking to consolidate it through institutions. Whether this process ultimately paves the way for deeper political pluralism or stabilizes a sophisticated form of directed governance depends not only on constitutional declarations but also on political practice,” the expert concludes.

Earlier, Chairman of the Management Board of Maqsut Narikbayev University Miras Zhiyenbayev praised the Kazakh Parliament for becoming a platform for adopting key political decisions over 30 years of its existence.