The Repression of the LGBT Community in Kazakhstan and Russia University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands Master Political Science International Relations 29 January 2016 Author: Bram Liplijn (10002677) Supervisor: dhr. M.C. Hanegraaff !2 Abstract In this thesis, the pillars of stability theory by Johannes Gerschweski will be tested in the cases of Kazakstan and Russia. The focus is on the repression of the LGBT community in both countries by their respective autocratic regimes. Moreover, this thesis gives new insights and an overview of the legal and cultural strategies that autocratic regimes use to repress LGBT people. Little research has be developed in both fields. The analysis shows that the Russian regime stabilizes itself by legitimating its rule by using anti-LGBT rhetorics, by repressing it with both legal restrictions and cultural norms, and by co-opting with the Russian Orthodox Church in doing so. When it comes to Kazakhstan, the image is less clear. Although the Kazakh regime represses the LGBT community with both legal restrictions and cultural norms, legitimization and co-optation have little do with it. !3 Table of Contents Abstract 3 List of Tables 5 1 Introduction 6 2 Theoretical Framework 10 2.1 The Three Pillars of Stability: Legitimation, Repression and Co-optation 10 2.2 Strategies to Repress Interest Groups: Legal Restrictions and Cultural Norms 14 3 Methodology 20 4 Kazakhstan 24 4.1 Legitimation: Family Values 24 4.2 Repression: Legal Restrictions and Cultural Norms 25 4.3 Co-optation: Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions 30 5 Russia 32 5.1 Legitimation: Anti-LGBT discourse 32 5.2 Repression: Legal Restrictions and Cultural Norms 33 5.3 Co-optation: The Russian Orthodox Church 39 6 Analyzing the cases of Kazakstan and Russia 41 6.1 Legitimation 41 6.2 Repression 42 6.3 Co-optation 45 7 Conclusion 47 Bibliography 49 !4 List of Tables Table 2.2.1 Overview of legal restrictions 17 Table 2.2.2 Overview of cultural norms 19 Table 3.0 Overview of the main concepts and indicators 22 Table 4.2 Forms of repression in Kazakhstan 30 Table 5.2 Forms of repression in Russia 38 Table 6.2.1 Overview legal restrictions Kazakhstan and Russia 43 !5 1 Introduction The 31st of July 2015 was a special and hopeful day for many Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender activists in Kazakhstan. In Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, the International Olympic Committee had come together to hold its 128th IOC Session, and, more importantly, to decide which of the two remaining bids would have the honour to host the 2022 Winter Olympics. Only two cities were left in the race: Beijing, China and Almaty, Kazakhstan. To the disappointment of many LGBT activists, Beijing gets the chance to host an Olympic event for the second time. The vow by the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, that his capital will host a ‘fantastic, extraordinary and excellent’ event, made it ultimately come out as the winner. Almaty was defeated by 40 to 44 votes, with one IOC member abstaining (Phillips, 2015). This decision was not so much a disappointment because the Kazakh LGBT activists are huge sports fans, but more importantly because it is a lost opportunity to draw attention to the problems this marginalized group faces. The hope of many human rights campaigners was that if Kazakhstan was chosen to host the Winter Olympics, the country would face great international pressure to improve the conditions for LGBT people. Tatiana Chernobyl, a lawyer and consultant for Amnesty International, said in a response to the outcome: Now that we don’t have the Olympics, we are afraid that there won’t be that pressure that we could use to get some changes here” (Flintoff, 2015). The changes she suggests include a stricter enforcement of the Kazakh laws to protect people with different sexual and gender orientations from discrimination and violence. The fear of the Kazakh LGBT community is that the government is going to implement a ‘Russian-style’ law that would restrict gay rights. The famous banning of the so-called ‘propaganda about non-traditional sexual relationships to minors’, which was passed in Russia in 2013. Their fear is justified by the fact that earlier in 2015 Kazakhstan’s parliament already passed similar anti-propaganda law, which was later struck down by the Kazakh constitutional court (Flintoff, 2015). As mentioned above, the Russian state has already made more progress in restricting the rights of its LGBT-population. The ‘anti-gay propaganda’ law was passed just a year before the !6 Winter olympics of 2014 were hosted by Russia in Sochi. The law drew widespread international criticism because of this event. In addition, many Russian LGBT organizations had the same hope as the ones in Kazakhstan: that the international attention would pressure the government to take a less discriminatory stance. Although the spotlight on Sochi initially constrained the Russian government, when the Olympics were finished, there was little result. Yelena Goltsman of the organization ‘Rusa LGBT’ stated that: “Some are still in denial, and unfortunately for those, I believe the awakening will be a very cruel awakening” and “Many people are actually starting to explore what their chances of leaving the country [are]” (Huffington Post, 2014). The only change did not come out of Russia, but from the International Olympic Committee when it added a clause to the contract for the host country that it should ban any form of discrimination (Flintoff, 2015). These examples signal that the position of the Kazakh and Russian LGBT community is threatened more and more by their respective states. Discrimination is not only experienced on a day to day basis in daily life, but states actively promote it, or have plans to do so, by proposing and issuing legislation. As shocking and important as these examples are, they only describe the phenomenon of what is happening to LGBTs in Kazakhstan and Russia. It does not give an answer to the question of ‘why’ and only a limited answer to ‘how’. In reports by newspapers on the issue, the anti-gay propaganda law is often mentioned and serves as the prime example. Though this is an important piece of legislation that heavily influences the lives of LGBTs in Russia, it is not the only way in which the state represses this minority. The governments of Kazakhstan and Russia have multiple strategies of suppressing this sexual minority. One of the aims of this thesis is to map these strategies used in the two countries to downplay, marginalize, discriminate, or in the term that will be used throughout this thesis, to repress its LGBT community. Before giving an overview of the strategies used by Kazakhstan and Russia to repress their LGBT community, it is important to know why the governments of these two countries try to do so. There must be a reason why this sexual minority is targeted with specific legislation that makes their position inferior to the rest of the population. The suggestion that the Orthodox culture has a big influence is probable, but at the same time rather vague. Also the Communist legacy of the !7 Soviet-Union, which both countries were part of, is a reasonable explanation, but one can argue how much history influences the current practices of a state. Furthermore, both suggestions focus more on society in general than on the government in specific, while the mode of governance in this case is more important. Arguing that both Kazakhstan with President Nursultan Nazarbayev and Russia with President Vladimir Putin have in essence an autocratic regime (Ulfelder, 2005), and that these autocratic regimes have one single goal: prolonging its reign as long as possible, it is better to take the theory of the pillars of stability by Johannes Gerschewski as a starting point. Based on the before mentioned questions, the main research question is as followed: Why and in what way have Russia and Kazakhstan repressed LGBT-interest groups over the last five years? As already highlighted, this research has great societal relevance. Although the positions of the LGBT community in both Kazakhstan and Russia has never been ‘optimal’, the repression of this community has become a worldwide topic of debate. The anti-gay propaganda law has put the LGBT community in the spotlight, with both positive and negative effects. In more countries in the former-Soviet region the discussion on the position of sexual minorities in society has become topical and extreme. On the other hand, there has been a stronger Western focus on the protection of LGBT-rights and the abuses of this group in both Kazakhstan and Russia. Numerous NGO’s dealing with civil liberties, such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Freedom House, have established reports on this subject over the last couple of years. The theoretical relevance of this research is twofold. First of all, it contributes to the discussion on the functioning of autocratic regimes. While there have been many studies on democratic regimes, few scholars have contributed to the literature on autocratic regimes, and more importantly, why they endure. The importance to research this is best captured by the following quote: “A quarter of the world’s nation states and territories are ruled by dictators. Moreover, there are many regimes in which democratic and autocratic elements of rule are mixed in various ways. It thus behoves political scientists to study the trajectories, manifestations and perspectives of non- democratic rule in general and autocratic rule in particular” (Köllner & Kailitz, 2012). In other words, autocratic regimes, in all their different forms, are part of this world and they are here to stay.