What form of government is suitable for Kazakhstan in the future?

Results of last parliamentary elections in Germany are remarkable that the obvious winner Angela Merkel should form the coalition government together with other parties. Such is the feature of the German form of government when even the convincing victory not always gives the monopoly for the power.
This German phenomenon forced to return to a question actual for us: what form of government is most acceptable for Kazakhstan in the future?
According to the Constitution even not presidential, but super presidential government is in Kazakhstan. The president is the highest official of the country and defines the main directions of domestic and foreign policy of the state. He appoints the prime minister, key ministers, chairmen of National Bank, KNB and Central Election Commission, proposes the candidate of the chairman of the Senate, offers the candidate of the chairman and judges of the Supreme Court, appoints judges of local courts..... There are almost all branches of the power under presidential control. And the second ad the subsequent other presidents except for stay terms on a post on powers will strongly not concede to the acting first president and the leader of the nation.
Probably, for this reason possible change of a form of government is discussed from time to time publicly and in mass media.
Let's consider existing forms of government from the point of view of acceptability for Kazakhstan.
The classical presidential republic when the president heads the government. The USA and Brazil refer to such countries. Despite essential powers of the president, parliament plays a “counterbalance” role.
The mixed one. Presidential and parliamentary or parliamentary and presidential republic. In the first (France, Ukraine) the president appoints the government, but it is formed by results of parliamentary elections and is under parliament control. In the second (Finland) the president and parliament are on a footing of equality. The government is, as a rule, formed by the party leader who has occupied the majority of places in parliament with the subsequent statement with the president.
Classical parliamentary republic. Germany, Italy. Predominating position of parliament and the prime minister. The president is elected by parliament and executes purely representative functions.
Presidency under patronage of the Supreme head (leader) of the country. Bright and only example is Iran with its spiritual leader in relation to whom the president carries out a role of the head of the government.
The parliamentary republic with dominating one party. Such system works in Singapore, where the prime minister as the party leader, having the constant majority in parliament, possesses the real political power.
Party board. The management of the state is carried out by one party. So was in the Soviet Union. Now in China, in Cuba and in some other countries
Joint presidency. The management of the state on a constant basis carries out the joint body the members of which are chosen by national vote (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Here it is also possible to carry Switzerland where federal advisers for sequence for a period of one year carry out the presidential functions.
Presidency of a transition period. Such form is applied when political forces in search of a compromise, agree on the interim president. So was in Kyrgyzstan a few years ago.
It should be noted that it won't be possible to change the form of government without “presidency under patronage of the Supreme leader” or “temporary presidency”. The control from the leader of the nation, or the head of the country for a certain short period are required for passing to one of above-mentioned forms of government.
So we can’t have the spiritual leader on a religious basis, as we are secular and multi-religious country.
Also it is necessary to exclude the party board. Firstly, because of negative Soviet experience. Secondly, Nour Otan's ruling party keeps on authority of its leader.
As a result, it turns out that Kazakhstan faces a choice: or to keep an existing presidential form, or to transform it in mixed or parliamentary form.
As the history shows, wide and almost unlimited presidential powers in combination with long terms of board can lead to negative consequences for the country. There is the example: Indonesia, Philippines, Iraq, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, etc.
The mixed forms of government allow to redistribute the part of presidential functions to parliament and the government and to create the system of control and a counterbalance. But thus the value of a personal factor remains. From experience of other countries it is visible that the coexistence of the president and the prime minister from different political camps affects effective management of the country and not always promotes its development.
Feature of parliamentary system is that, despite a special role of the party leader, the voter chooses party. The party list is openly approved at congress and in case of a victory represents the main structure of future government. Besides, the electorate will be able to judge this or that party on its daily activity, including at local level.
For Kazakhstan it is important that the party list besides a political platform allows to reflect especially Kazakh features known for all and to consider interests of other ethnic groups.
The most important is that the classical parliamentary form of state government excludes monopoly of leaders and individuals for the power.