Reluctant Reforms: The Case of Kazakhstan

This paper investigates what happens during reluctant reforms in which normative imperatives conflict with self-interest. In the literature one of the expected outcomes is hypocrisy. However, the claim of hypocrisy is a strong one and needs backing. The purpose of this paper is to investigate on the basis of which indicators such claims can be warranted and whether these indicators are found in the case of reforms in the Republic of Kazakhstan. The common thread in the literature about hypocrisy is the point of inconsistency. Inconsistency in two ways: in the case of reforms to claim to induce huge changes, while resulting in nominal reforms, not changing anything; and inconsistency in the reactions to and opinions about such changes showing ‘differential judgments according to contexts’. This is investigated for the reforms in Kazakhstan with regard to promoting democracy and protecting human rights during the last decade. The analysis argues that these reforms as well as the international reactions do possess all the elements indicative for hypocrisy. At the end the implications for research on reforms are discussed.