In the Turkestan region, in the village of Algabas, a terrible fire occurred, becoming the most tragic incident of its kind in the country. As a result of the blaze in a large private house, two families died, totaling 12 people, including nine children. Currently, firefighters and investigators are working at the scene, and a government commission has been established to investigate the causes of the tragedy. The commission includes representatives from various ministries, including the Ministry of Emergency Situations and the Ministry of Education, who continuously inform the commission's chairman, Deputy Prime Minister Kanat Bozumbaev, about the progress of their work. This was reported by exclusive.kz.
The media actively reports on the actions of the Deputy Prime Minister: "Bozumbaev gave instructions," "ordered assistance to be provided," "commission members are reporting," and so on. The state machinery's reaction to extraordinary situations has already been set in motion, and officials assure that "the situation is under special control." Information about the establishment of the commission was published on the Prime Minister's website, and the message concluded with the phrase that "the work of the Commission is under special control," implying a high level of presidential intervention.
Earlier, at the beginning of his presidency, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev also took responsibility for various "emergency situations," from sewage problems in high-rise buildings to interethnic conflicts. At that time, experts noted his quick response as a signal that the state "hears" its citizens and is always ready to help.
This created a sense among citizens that if something goes wrong at the local level, the "wizard from Akorda" will definitely solve the problem. Although Tokayev and his predecessor created conditions for the effective functioning of state institutions, the question arises: why does the crisis response mechanism so heavily depend on the president? In the case of the tragedy in Algabas, we see that all actions follow a familiar algorithm: "it is divinely ordained, and the president has ordered." In our country, nothing happens without a presidential directive, although the system should work the other way around.
What should it look like? First and foremost, a commission should have been created at the level of local administration—not at the regional, but at the district level. Resources should have been allocated to assist the victims and organize funerals. Then, support from regional and republican funds could have been supplemented, and only afterward should the higher leadership be informed about the steps taken. This is how the system works in civilized countries: local authorities address problems, and central authorities intervene only when necessary. Ideally, the district maslikhat deputies could coordinate actions on the ground.
But in Kazakhstan, it is still necessary to wait for directives from the highest level of power. The president becomes the link between ineffective local authorities and the central apparatus, leading to a paradox: without the president's directive, all actions of local authorities prove fruitless.
After all the "improvements" in legislation, we lack a full-fledged system of local self-government. The Law "On Local State Administration and Self-Government," adopted back in 2001, essentially allows local maslikhats to engage in self-governance, but they are appointed by local akims and cannot act independently. As a result, the loop closes around the president.
The situation with the rule of law at the local level also depends on the president. For example, to resolve the issue of a drunk driving judge, it required public activists to appeal to the president. Similarly, the protest of mothers of fallen soldiers on the steps of the Ministry of Defense led to a response only when the president intervened. Even in the case of the tragic death of a KIMEP graduate, when the police assured that the investigation was under control, the president's intervention proved decisive.
It turns out that the president essentially substitutes local authorities and prosecutors, acting in emergency situations solely on his own directives. This is certainly impressive, but such a power ratio creates problems.
The lack of initiative among local authorities, despite having all the necessary powers, is a consequence of the concentration of power in the hands of the president, which breeds an ineffective management system. The question remains: will the second president of Kazakhstan be able to correct what was broken by the first?
