Clicca qui per scaricare

The role of parliament in the sustainable development of the country: Agenda for Kazakhstan
Autori/Curatori: Aliya Kassymbek, Lazzat Zhazylbek, Zhanel Sailibayeva, Kairatbek Shadiyev, Yermek Buribayev 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2019 Fascicolo: 2  Lingua: Inglese 
Numero pagine:  24 P. 29-52 Dimensione file:  256 KB
DOI:  10.3280/RISS2019-002005
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 

This study is devoted to the impact of Parliament on the sustainable socio-economic, political development of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The article addresses the most important issues of sustainable development, the formation and activities of the legislative branch of power, the importance of parliament during the transitional periods of political modernization of Kazakhstan. The authors tried to reveal the political and legal foundations of the functioning of the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan, to determine the most popular areas of its functioning in modern conditions of accelerating political processes in the country. It is likely that the upsurge in civic activity in Kazakhstan, mass rallies, as well as a change in the thirty-year rule of the first president will put the government in need of transforming the legislative branch of power. Against this background, the underestimation of the social and political significance of parliamentary institutions as one of the decisive conditions for the stable and sustainable development of society and the state stands out. The dependence of the sustainable development of Kazakhstan on the level of development of parliamentary relations seems to be a key point in understanding the essence of the modern political process, its internal determinants, requiring the disclosure of the relationship between elements of civil society and government structures. A comprehensive study of the relationship between socio-political stability and parliamentary institutions contributes to the further development of a scientific theory of the development of the individual, society and the state in the complex and contradictory conditions of the transit of supreme power, which Kazakhstan entered.

Keywords: Kazakhstan, parliament, parliamentarism, legislature, elections, election process.

  1. Russo F., & Verzichelli L. (2014, April). The Adoption of Positive and Negative Parliamentarism: Systemic or Idiosyncratic Differences. In: ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops.
  2. Carothers T. (2002). The end of the transition paradigm. Journal of Democracy, 13(1): 5-21.
  3. Ottaway M. (2013). Democracy challenged: The rise of semi-authoritarianism. Carnegie Endowment.
  4. Apakhayev N. et al. (2017). Legal Basis for Ensuring Freedom of Access to Information on the Operation of State Administration Bodies in Kazakhstan. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, VIII, Summer, 3(25): 722-729.
  5. Carpinschi A., & Ilas A. (2004). Political crisis and the democratic institutional construction. A compared analysis of twenty-eight constitution. [Criza politica si constructia institutionala democratica. O analiza comparata a douazeci si opt de constitutii]. Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 3(7): 54-76.
  6. Carpinschi A., & Ilas A. (2010). Criza politica si constructia institutionala democratica. O analiza comparata a douazeci si opt de constitutii/Political Crisis And The Democratic Institutional Construction. A Compared Analysis Of Twenty-Eight Constitutions. Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 3(7): 54-76.
  7. Cheibub J., Przeworski A., & Saiegh S. (2004). Government Coalitions and Legislative Success Under Presidentialism and Parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science, 34(4): 565-587., DOI: 10.1017/S0007123404000195
  8. Dahl R. (1996). Thinking about democratic constitutions: conclusions from democratic experience. Nomos, 38: 175-206. -- Retrieved from
  9. Dryzek J., & Dunleavy P. (2009). Theories of the democratic state. Macmillan International Higher Education.
  10. Dzhunusova Z. (1998). Kazakstan’s political transformation since 1991. Nationalities Papers, 26(3): 545-555.
  11. Elazar D. J. (1997). Contrasting unitary and federal systems. International Political Science Review, 18(3): 237-251.
  12. Elster J. (1995). Forces and Mechanisms in the Constitution-Making Process. Duke Law Journal, 45(2): 364-396., DOI: 10.2307/1372906
  13. Giovannini E. (2011). Misurare il benessere equo e sostenibile per cambiare comportamenti individuali e scelte politiche. Rivista di studi sulla sostenibilità, 1: 15-17.
  14. Helms L. (2008). Studying parliamentary opposition in old and new democracies: Issues and perspectives. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 14(1-2): 6-19., DOI: 10.1080/13572330801920788
  15. Hicks J., & Hicks J. R. (1977). Economic perspectives: further essays on money and growth. Oxford University Press.
  16. Knutsen C. H. (2009). The economic growth effect of constitutions revisited. Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, First Draft.
  17. Kuzio T. (2012). Twenty years as an independent state: Ukraine’s ten logical inconsistencies. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 45(3-4): 429-438.
  18. Linz J. J. (1990). The perils of presidentialism. Journal of democracy, 1(1): 51-69.
  19. Linz J. J. (1994). Democracy, Presidential or Parliamentary: Does it Make a Difference? In: Linz J. J. and Valenzuela A. (eds.). The Failure of Presidential Democracy: The Case of Latin America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  20. Malinovskiy V.A. (2005). Prezident Respubliki Kazakhstan i Parlament Respubliki: vzaimootnosheniya, sistema sderzhek i protivovesov. II Nauchnoye izdaniye - Astana: Institut zakonodatel'stva Respubliki Kazakhstan, 53 s.
  21. Misso R., Cesaretti G. P., & Viola I. (2013). Sostenibilità del benessere e responsabilità. Rivista di studi sulla sostenibilità, 1: 77-92.
  22. Mukhamedzhanov E. (2005). Yeshche raz o strukture Parlamenta. Spetsializirovannyy yezhemesyachnyy zhurnal Yurist, 1. --
  23. Nemţoi G. (2014). The Decisive Role of Parliaments in Democracy of Social-political Life. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149: 647-652.
  24. O’donnell G., & Schmitter P. C. (2013). Transitions from authoritarian rule: Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. JHU Press.
  25. Schumpeter J. A., & Opie R. (1961). The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  26. Shugart M. S. (2005). Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive And Mixed Authority Patterns. French Politics, 3: 323-351.
  27. Von Achenbach J. (2017). Separation of powers and the role of political theory in contemporary democracies. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 15(3): 861-865.
  28. Waldron J. (2013). Separation of powers in thought and practice. BCL Rev., 54: 433.
  29. Yan H. T. (2017). Comparing democratic performance of semi-presidential regimes in the post-communist region: Omnipotent presidents and media control. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 50(4): 263-275.

Aliya Kassymbek, Lazzat Zhazylbek, Zhanel Sailibayeva, Kairatbek Shadiyev, Yermek Buribayev, in "RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA'" 2/2019, pp. 29-52, DOI:10.3280/RISS2019-002005


FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche