Politicization of e-voting rejection: reflections from Kazakhstan

Abstract

Purpose

Despite certain political, organizational, technological and socioeconomic benefits that e-voting brings, governments around the world are beginning one by one to denounce its further use in the electoral process. In this regard, the paper aims to analyze reasons that led to the discontinuation of e-voting, resorting to the case of Kazakhstan, a transitional post-soviet country, which actively used the technology in 2004-2011, as a poster child of the global trend, elaborating on key political, socioeconomic, organizational and technological risks that could be associated with the possible return of this innovation in future elections.

Design/methodology/approach

The research is based on the combination of context and policy analysis, as well as focus groups studies and semi-structured interviews. The context analysis was aimed to understand various political and socioeconomic benefits in adopting e-voting in Kazakhstan. The policy analysis was useful in identifying implementation strategies of the government in promoting e-voting. The focus groups were helpful in understanding the perspectives of various audiences on e-voting. The semi-structured interviews were carried among independent developers in regard to the potential software products that could be used to propose new solutions in the area, including by experimenting with various blockchain platforms.

Findings

Analyzing the lessons from Kazakhstan, one can conclude that e-voting was introduced and used for several years by authorities in this country for certain economic and organizational benefits, but later they had to reject it and return to traditional paper ballot due to lack of confidence from the non-governmental sector in the capacity of public sector to ensure the integrity of e-voting procedures. As a result, building trust and applying innovative approaches should be a priority for policymakers in the area, if they wish to return to this technology, especially in adopting new presumably more reliable solutions based on blockchain technologies.

Research limitations/implications

The primary data that was collected by the author from field studies were indexed, refined and presented in a special matrix in a separate section, which were interpreted in the discussion session. These data could be used by other scholars for further interpretation and analysis in their own studies, setting new research agendas and testing hypotheses. This is a single case study research, which is focused on the analysis of reasons that led to the denunciation of e-voting in Kazakhstan, which results could be extrapolated mostly to similar transitional post-totalitarian settings.

Practical implications

The study can be used to inform ways of how to improve the current e-voting platforms, especially in ensuring better security and transparency of the systems, which could be useful for developers who work on blockchain-driven solutions.

Social implications

The results of the case study research and expert opinions expressed by various software developers in the e-government areas, which were presented in the paper, could be used by both an academic community and practitioners in understanding better a wide range of political, organizational, economic, social and technological drivers, risks and new opportunities in promoting e-voting technology as a trust generating social phenomenon.

Originality/value

The paper proposes the first case study of reasons that led to the discontinuation of e-voting in the context of such a typical transitional, post-totalitarian and post-soviet society as Kazakhstan, providing new insights into a wide range of political, regulatory, socioeconomic, organizational and technological aspects of related policy decision-making and implementation strategies adopted by public institutions in this country.

Citation

Kassen, M. (2020), "Politicization of e-voting rejection: reflections from Kazakhstan", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 305-330. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-11-2019-0106