On the one hand, I would point out that your theory about a clash of elites is just as applicable in the American mediascape as in the Kazakh one. Consider: CNN versus Fox News (Turner versus Murdoch). On the other hand, there can be real differences of opinion between these elites.

Meanwhile, although I definitely agree that “opposition” and “independence” should not be confused as being the same concept, this distinction still overlooks the problem — the universal problem — of funding for media. There is no fullproof way to ensure the independence of a media outlet. Privatization opens the door to one kind of bias, government-sponsorship to another.

Also, Kazakhstan is an avowed “guided democracy” (cf. “From Democratization to ‘Guided Democracy’” by Archie Brown). To what degree that is just a rouse for corruption is highly debatable. I, for one, am torn: I see it as very dangerous, but at the same time, I’m receptive to the argument that the government is sincere in its paternalism, and sees such control (right or wrongly) as the road to long-term stability and some kind of recognizable modernization. Consider the arguments that Alima Bissenova makes on The Registan (cf. “Kazakhstan’s elections: aspirations for democracy amidst expectations of paternalism”), concluding:

“Nazarbayev has usurped huge power but the majority of people in Kazakhstan continue to support him, and by association his party, precisely because they see that a concentrated power is needed to ensure order and stability and to provide solutions to the social problems of the day. The ruling elite and, perhaps, Nazarbayev himself, however, hope that this power which is now concentrated in the figure of Nazarbayev can be institutionalized and subsequently inherited not just by the next president (like as happened, for instance, in Turkmenistan) but by an institution, such as a parliament or a ruling party, which would be supported by the people in the same way that Nazarbayev himself was supported.”