In an analytical commentary, Professor, Chief Research Fellow at the Kazakh Institute for Strategic Studies, Doctor of Sociological Sciences Aygul Zabirova examines how Kazakhstan’s proposed transition to a new parliamentary model could reshape governance, decision-making speed, and institutional accountability-highlighting what is at stake for democratic development, public trust, and the state’s ability to respond effectively to rapid economic and technological change.
The transition to a unicameral parliament proposed by President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev marks far more than a routine constitutional amendment-it represents a fundamental rethink of Kazakhstan’s political architecture. The initiative comes amid rapid digitalization, deep economic reforms, and the emergence of new technologies that are reshaping how modern states are governed, The Caspian Post reports via the Kazakh Institute for Strategic Studies.
Viewed in a broader context, the reform is a logical continuation of Kazakhstan’s political transformation over recent years. Four packages of political reforms adopted between 2019 and 2021, followed by the 2022 constitutional reform, set the course toward renewal, openness, and institutional rationality. Notably, the idea of a unicameral parliament is not new-it has been discussed domestically for nearly two decades. Its emergence on the agenda of the National Kurultai (assembly) at this stage signals that both the system and society are ready. This reflects the core principle of a “Listening State,” where decisions are taken when conditions have genuinely matured.
Kazakhstan currently operates a bicameral parliament comprising the Majilis (parliament) and the Senate. Under the proposed reform, the legislature would transition to a single chamber based on the Majilis, while the Senate would conclude its mandate only after a nationwide referendum. The process is deliberately gradual: broad public discussion will precede a referendum planned for 2027. Officially, the reform is expected to affect around 40 articles of the Constitution and dozens of laws-an extensive overhaul with clearly defined stages.
Stripped of legal terminology, the rationale is straightforward. The state needs to make decisions faster-not out of haste, but because the world is changing rapidly. In this environment, a bicameral system can become cumbersome, lengthening the legislative process through multiple layers of approval. A unicameral model shortens and streamlines procedures, which is particularly critical for the digital agenda, artificial intelligence governance, public administration reform, and regional policy.
A second motivation is clarity and efficiency in governance. With a single center of legislative responsibility, transparency increases, and interaction between Parliament, the government, and the presidency becomes more straightforward. Fewer intermediary layers also mean fewer points of institutional friction.
There is also an important party-system dimension. In the current configuration, one political force plays a dominant role in Parliament, shaping legislative priorities. In such circumstances, a unicameral structure tends to shift competition inward-within the leading party-rather than between parties. This model has precedent in countries such as Japan during certain periods, South Korea during modernization, and several unitary states in Asia today.
Another often-overlooked factor is cost efficiency. Unicameral systems eliminate duplicate structures and reduce public expenditure. While not the primary driver of reform, this economic rationale adds to its appeal.
Importantly, the removal of an upper chamber requires compensatory mechanisms-and these are built into the proposal. In a unicameral parliament, committees will take on a stronger role as centers of expertise, risk assessment, and impact analysis. Parliamentary oversight, inquiries, government reporting, and public hearings will be strengthened. Constitutional justice is expected to act as a balancing mechanism, replacing the Senate’s role in safeguarding constitutional fundamentals.
For citizens, the reform translates into two tangible outcomes: faster decision-making and a digitally oriented parliament. An e-Parliament model implies open data, electronic deliberations, transparent information flows, and a direct communication channel between citizens and lawmakers.
International experience suggests this path is well tested. Portugal, with its semi-presidential system and unicameral parliament, offers a relevant example, as do Denmark, Sweden, and Estonia, where unicameral models have proven effective in environments requiring rapid decisions and strong institutional coordination.
Taken together, the proposed shift toward a unicameral parliament points to a more compact, agile, and technology-driven model of parliamentarism. The challenge now lies in ensuring high-quality expertise, robust oversight, and genuine openness. It is both a test and an opportunity-to build a parliamentary system capable of responding swiftly and professionally to the demands of a changing era.
