Цифровизация парламентов за рубежом: сравнительный анализ и оценка применимости опыта для Казахстана
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48010/4cwc2834Ключевые слова:
цифровизация парламента, электронные петиции, гражданское участие, парламентские комитеты, Курултай, Қазақстан Халық Кеңесі, персональные данные, алгоритмическая предвзятостьАннотация
В статье сравнивается опыт цифрового участия в пяти зарубежных парламентах и оценивается возможность его применения в Казахстане в условиях однопалатного Курултая, созданного в результате конституционной реформы 2026 года. Основной исследовательский вопрос состоит в том, какие институциональные элементы обеспечивают доведение гражданского сигнала до парламентского решения. Согласно гипотезе, результативность цифрового участия определяется степенью встроенности платформы в парламентскую процедуру, а не ее технологическим уровнем. Методологическую основу составили сравнительное кейс-стади, институциональный анализ по пяти измерениям и структурированный анализ хронологии реформ. Единицами анализа выступили Палата общин Великобритании, Парламент Шотландии, Бундестаг Германии, Палата депутатов Бразилии и Рийгикогу Эстонии. Результаты показали, что во всех системах высокого порога достигает лишь небольшая доля опубликованных петиций. В Вестминстере эта доля составила около 0,6%, в Бундестаге в 2025 году около 1,5%. Порталы, встроенные в процедуру, дают устойчивый результат, а платформы вне процедуры утрачивают значение. Проанализированы риски расширения цифрового участия в сферах персональных данных, кибербезопасности и алгоритмической предвзятости. Для Казахстана предлагаются двухступенчатый порог для петиций, адресованных Курултаю, комитетский порядок их рассмотрения, открытое отслеживание хода рассмотрения и связь с Қазақстан Халық Кеңесі.
Библиографические ссылки
1 Leston-Bandeira, C. (2007). The impact of the Internet on parliaments: A legislative studies framework. Parliamentary Affairs, 60(4), 655–674. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsm040
2 Lindner, R., & Riehm, U. (2009). Electronic petitions and institutional modernization: International parliamentary e-petition systems in comparative perspective. JeDEM—eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 1(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v1i1.3
3 Ob iskusstvennom intellekte: Zakon Respubliki Kazakhstan ot 17 noyabrya 2025 goda No. 230-VIII ZRK [On Artificial Intelligence: Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 230-VIII dated November 17, 2025]. (2025). Adilet. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z2500000230 (In Russian)
4 Tsifrovoy kodeks Respubliki Kazakhstan ot 9 yanvarya 2026 goda No. 255-VIII ZRK [Digital Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 255-VIII dated January 9, 2026]. (2026). Adilet. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K2600000255 (In Russian)
5 87,15% «za»: V Kazakhstane utverdili novuyu Konstitutsiyu po itogam referenduma [87.15% voted “yes”: Kazakhstan approved a new Constitution following the referendum]. (2026, March 17). BES.media. https://bes.media/news/8715-za-v-kazahstane-utverdili-novuyu-konstitutsiyu-po-itogam-referenduma-f4e501/ (In Russian)
6 Pervaya sessiya Kurultaya pervogo sozyva naznachena na 28 avgusta [The first session of the first convocation of the Kurultai is scheduled for August 28]. (2026, August 26). Kapital.kz. https://kapital.kz/gosudarstvo/152122/pervaya-sessiya-kurultaya-pervogo-sozyva-naznachena-na-28-avgusta.html (In Russian)
7 Izbrany chleny postoyannykh komitetov Kurultaya — spisok [Members of the Kurultai’s standing committees elected: List]. (2026, August 28). Zakon.kz. https://www.zakon.kz/politika/6529730-izbrany-chleny-postoyannykh-komitetov-kurultaya--spisok.html (In Russian)
8 Pervoye zasedaniye Qazaqstan Khalyk Kenesi: Klyuchevyye resheniya [First meeting of the Kazakhstan People’s Council: Key decisions]. (2026, September 23). 24.kz. https://24.kz/ru/news/policy/793943-pervoe-zasedanie-kazakstan-khalyk-kenesi-klyuchevye-resheniya (In Russian)
9 Parlament odobril proyekt zakona o sozdanii Khalyk Kenesi [Parliament approved a draft law on the establishment of the People’s Council]. (2026, May 15). Kapital.kz. https://kapital.kz/gosudarstvo/148091/parlament-odobril-proekt-zakona-o-sozdanii-halykh-kengesi.html (In Russian)
10 Serra-Silva, S. (2022). How do parliaments engage with citizens? Online public engagement: A comparative analysis of parliamentary websites. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 28(4), 489–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2021.1896451
11 Bernardes, C., & Bandeira, C. (2016). Information vs. engagement in parliamentary websites: A case study of Brazil and the UK. Revista de Sociologia e Política, 24(59), 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-987316245905
12 Griffith, J., & Leston-Bandeira, C. (2012). How are parliaments using new media to engage with citizens? The Journal of Legislative Studies, 18(3–4), 496–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2012.706058
13 Leston-Bandeira, C. (2019). Parliamentary petitions and public engagement: An empirical analysis of the role of e-petitions. Policy & Politics, 47(3), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319X15579230420117
14 Lindner, R., & Riehm, U. (2011). Broadening participation through e-petitions? An empirical study of petitions to the German Parliament. Policy & Internet, 3(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1083
15 Jungherr, A., & Jürgens, P. (2010). The political click: Political participation through e-petitions in Germany. Policy & Internet, 2(4), 131–165. https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1084
16 Matthews, F. (2021). The value of “between-election” political participation: Do parliamentary e-petitions matter to political elites? The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 23(3), 410–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120959041
17 Hendriks, C. M. (2016). Coupling citizens and elites in deliberative systems: The role of institutional design. European Journal of Political Research, 55(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12123
18 O’Connor, K., Janenova, S., & Knox, C. (2019). Open government in authoritarian regimes. International Review of Public Policy, 1(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.4000/irpp.325
19 Kurmanov, B., Selteyev, U., & Almaganbetov, A. (2024). “Listening State?”: Exploring citizens’ perceptions of open government in Tokayev’s Kazakhstan. Central Asian Survey, 43(2), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2023.2268652
20 Mukhametkaliyeva, Ye. M., & Bastaubayeva, A. Zh. (2018). Vovlecheniye obshchestvennosti v normotvorcheskuyu deyatel’nost’ Kazakhstana posredstvom ispol’zovaniya kraudsorsinga [Public engagement in Kazakhstan’s rulemaking through crowdsourcing]. Gosudarstvennoye upravleniye i gosudarstvennaya sluzhba, (4), 138–163. (In Russian)
21 House of Commons Library. (2025). Petitions in the UK (Research Briefing No. CBP-8620). https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8620/
22 Vidgen, B., & Yasseri, T. (2020). What, when and where of petitions submitted to the UK government during a time of chaos. Policy Sciences, 53(3), 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09395-y
23 77,000 fake signatures removed from Brexit referendum petition. (2016, June 27). Silicon Republic. https://siliconrepublic.com/trending/brexit-referendum-petition-fake-signatures
24 Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. (2026). Annual report 2025–2026: 1st report, 2026 (Session 6). The Scottish Parliament. https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/committees/committee-reports/cppp/2026/3/16/cppps062026r01
25 Böhle, K., & Riehm, U. (2013). E-petition systems and political participation: About institutional challenges and democratic opportunities. First Monday, 18(7). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i7.4220
26 Deutscher Bundestag. (2024, June 26). Petitionsausschuss: Quorum für öffentliche Beratungen auf 30.000 abgesenkt [Petitions Committee: Quorum for public hearings reduced to 30,000]. https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2024/kw26-pa-petitionen-quorum-1010108 (In German)
27 Deutscher Bundestag. (2026, June 10). Petitionsbericht 2025: Bericht des Petitionsausschusses (Drucksache 21/6000) [Petitions report 2025: Report of the Petitions Committee (Parliamentary Paper 21/6000)]. https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2026/kw24-de-petitionsbericht-2025-1181866 (In German)
28 Faria, C. F. S. (2013). The open parliament in the age of the Internet: Can the people now collaborate with legislatures in lawmaking? Edições Câmara.
29 Observatory of Public Sector Innovation. (n.d.). LabHacker. OECD. https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/labhacker/
30 Jonsson, M. E. (2015). Democratic innovations in deliberative systems: The case of the Estonian Citizens’ Assembly process. Journal of Public Deliberation, 11(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.224
31 Observatory of Public Sector Innovation. (2016). Collective addresses and Rahvaalgatus.ee: Nudging the Parliament of Estonia to more openness and accountability. OECD. https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/collective-addresses-and-rahvaalgatus-ee-nudging-the-parliament-of-estonia-to-more-openness-and-accountability/
32 Citizen initiative portal empowering Estonians in digital age of democracy. (2024, January 24). e-Estonia. https://e-estonia.com/citizen-initiative-portal-empowering-estonians-in-digital-age-of-democracy/
33 Rahvaalgatus.ee: Estonian citizen initiative portal. (n.d.). Retrieved October 25, 2026, from https://rahvaalgatus.ee/
34 Toots, M. (2019). Why e-participation systems fail: The case of Estonia’s Osale.ee. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.02.002
35 Inter-Parliamentary Union. (2024). World e-Parliament report 2024. https://www.ipu.org/news/press-releases/2024-10/new-ipu-report-parliaments-embrace-technology-digital-divide-persists
36 O vnesenii izmeneniy i dopolneniy v nekotoryye zakonodatel’nyye akty Respubliki Kazakhstan po voprosam obshchestvennogo kontrolya, sovershenstvovaniya administrativnykh protsedur: Zakon Respubliki Kazakhstan ot 2 oktyabrya 2023 goda No. 31-VIII ZRK [On amendments and additions to certain legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan concerning public oversight and the improvement of administrative procedures: Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 31-VIII dated October 2, 2023]. (2023). Adilet. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z2300000031 (In Russian)
37 Lyngaas, S. (2020, December 8). Norwegian police implicate Fancy Bear in parliament hack, describe brute-forcing of email accounts. CyberScoop. https://cyberscoop.com/norwegian-police-implicate-fancy-bear-in-parliament-hack-describe-brute-forcing-of-email-accounts/
38 Inter-Parliamentary Union. (2024). Guidelines for AI in parliaments. https://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/reference/2024-12/guidelines-ai-in-parliaments
39 Yefimov, V. (2026, October 16). II obrabotal 2,8 mln zhalob kazakhstantsev cherez eOtinish, no nikto ne znayet, skol’ko raz on oshibsya [AI processed 2.8 million complaints from Kazakhstanis through eOtinish, but no one knows how many times it made mistakes]. BES.media. https://bes.media/news/ii-obrabotal-2-8-mln-zhalob-kazahstantsev-cherez-eotinish-no-nikto-ne-znaet-skolko-raz-on-oshibsya/ (In Russian)
40 Kazakhstantsy podali boleye 5 mln obrashcheniy cherez eOtinish v 2025 godu [Kazakhstanis submitted more than 5 million appeals through eOtinish in 2025]. (2026, January 22). Kapital.kz. https://kapital.kz/tehnology/144309/kazahstancy-podali-bolee-5-mln-obrashenij-cherez-eotinish-v-2025-godu.html (In Russian)
41 Chego khotyat kazakhstantsy? Analiz sayta onlayn-petitsiy [What do Kazakhstanis want? An analysis of the online petitions website]. (2024, July 24). BES.media. https://bes.media/news/chego-hotyat-kazahstantsi-analiz-sayta-onlayn-petitsiy/ (In Russian)
Загрузки
Опубликован
Выпуск
Раздел
Лицензия
Copyright (c) 2026 Елнур Бейсенбаев
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution» («Атрибуция») 4.0 Всемирная.