“In general, in the new names of the regions, one can see a primordialist vector in nation-building. The changes affected the regions where the share of the state-forming ethnic group exceeds half. However, such cities as Pavlodar and Petropavlovsk, which local activists have been fighting for many years, still remain outside of such reforms,” says Kamila Smagulova (Kazakhstan), participant of the CABAR.asia School of Analysts 2021.
Message of the President: Improving the administrative-territorial structure of the country
On March 16, 2022, the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, delivered a message to the people of Kazakhstan. Systemic reforms, as well as popular unity, were mentioned as fundamental values of subsequent changes in the country. The head of state also announced the creation of three new regions – Ulytau, Abay and Zhetysu.
An important statement was also that a strong parliamentary republic to replace the super presidential method of government will become a priority, with the subsequent eradication of nepotism. The President focused on economic and educational reforms, as well as the formation of an effective ecosystem in the labor market.
One of the chapters of the message was the improvement of regional policy, as one of the principles of a listening state, which is associated with changes in the administrative-territorial division of the country.
![New regions of Kazakhstan in 2022. Photo: Qazaq Grammar and Kartahana](http://cabar.asia/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Foto-gorodov-Kazahstana.jpg)
Regional policy is one of the key issues for Kazakhstan. It is noteworthy that despite the fact that Kazakhstan occupies the largest territory among the countries of Central Asia, its administrative division includes a smaller number of government units (oblasts, autonomous regions, and cities of republican significance). For example, in Uzbekistan, which is about five times smaller in territory, there are 14 regions, as it was in Kazakhstan until March 2022. Similarly, it is worth noting that the number of administrative units in relation to the territory in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan is higher than in Kazakhstan.
Data collected from the following sources: http://www.stat.kg/ru/; https://stat.uz/ru/; https://www.stat.tj/ru; https://stat.gov.kz/official/industry/27/statistic/6; https://www.stat.gov.tm/statMumkinciligi
Changes in the administrative-territorial division
There is a three-level administrative division in Kazakhstan. Changes in 2022 took place at the first level, which includes regions and cities of republican significance. The second level includes districts in regions and cities of republican significance, as well as cities of regional significance. Akimats of villages, rural and settlement districts, cities of district and regional significance belong to units of administrative-territorial division of the third level.
Chronology of changes to the regions, 1930–2022:
- 1930 ⇒ The abolition of the districts as administrative-territorial units of the Kazakh ASSR. The following regions have been created – Aktobe, Alma-Ata, East Kazakh, West Kazakh, Karaganda, South Kazakh.
- 1991 ⇒ Renaming of regions after independence of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Atyrau region (former Guryevskaya), Akmola region (former Tselinograd region), Almaty region (former Alma-Ata region), West Kazakhstan region (the returned name of the former Ural region), South Kazakhstan region (former Chimkent region).
- 1997 ⇒ The capital of Kazakhstan was moved from Almaty to Akmola (former Astana, after 2019 Nur-Sultan). The Kokshetau, Zhezkazgan, Semipalatinsk, Turgai and Taldykorgan regions were abolished. (Administrative-territorial division by regions until 2018 – see figure below)
- 2018 ⇒ The city of Shymkent received the status of a city of republican significance and is not part of the South Kazakhstan region. Turkestan becomes the regional center of the South Kazakhstan region. The region itself was renamed Turkestan, respectively.
Administrative division of Kazakhstan until 2018
![](https://cabar.asia/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/regions.jpg)
The creation of three new regions in 2022 refers to the administrative-territorial system in the period before 1997. Significant changes in the division into regions took place this year during the administrative-territorial reform. Previously named Dzhezkazgan region until 1997, in 2022 the former name returns, excluding Karaganda from there. The name of this region in 2022 is Ulytau. Until 1997, the Taldykorgan region was not included in the Almaty region, and the city of Taldykurgan (now Taldykorgan) was the regional center. A similar picture is being restored and given the name Zhetysu (Kazakh name for Semirechye). The Semipalatinsk region will also be restored, as it operated from 1991 to 1997. The city of Semipalatinsk (now Semey) becomes the administrative center, the region receives its name in honor of the poet and public figure – Abai Kunanbaev.
The government plans to complete these measures by the end of the first half of the year.
Creation of new regions: why now?
It is noteworthy that such a transformation takes place precisely in a turbulent socio-political period, both for the state and for the entire post-Soviet space. Although the question of the timeliness and relevance of such reforms remains open, one of the obvious reasons is the attempts by the authorities to restore the image of a “hearer” after the events of bloody January, as well as during the war in Ukraine. After the January events, the society was mobilized much more than in 2011 and 2019, which served as a starting point for increasing civic participation.
In the current political context, the people’s demands on state institutions are growing. The decline in the reputation of akimats may also be one of the push factors for such reforms. For example, the situation when the former akim of Almaty Bakytzhan Sagintayev did not establish proper communication with the population of the city during the January events caused a wave of indignation, citizens demanded the resignation and re-election of a new akim. A similar situation occurs in the East Kazakhstan region (Ust-Kamenogorsk), where the population has been demanding the resignation of the city akim Zhaksylyk Omar for a long time.
As it is known, the formation of new akimats and local governments can impose an even greater burden on the public administration system, and accordingly, the question of effective management and financing of new areas arises.
Current problems of the administrative-territorial system
One of the existing problems is the lack of a previously developed document on territorial and administrative development. “The Strategy for the Territorial Development of the Republic until 2015” was approved by Nursultan Nazarbayev in 2006. However, by decree of N.A. Nazarbayev, the strategy lost its force in 2011. Immediately after that, the government adopted the “Forecast scheme of the territorial and spatial development of the country until 2020”. Experts noted its ability to help increase the potential of villages and single-industry towns. The lack of current strategies and concepts shows how theory lags behind management practice and creates a misunderstanding of the motives for such reform.
This 2006 strategy, in turn, focused on the intracontinental integration of Kazakhstan. N.A. Nazarbayev noted the potential of turning into a “Central Asian knot” and emphasized the importance of geopolitical as well as geo-economic integration. However, in addition to economic and geographical opportunities, cultural and institutional aspects are also important for individual regions for competitive development.
The direction of the vector of development of the regions to the external borders could probably affect the weakened interregional integration and the low interaction of the regions among themselves today. An example of this is the protests during the January events of 2022, which began in the western regions and then spread to the territory of the entire state. The inability to coordinate and inter-regional management were aggravating factors in establishing communication between regions, as well as ways to resolve the conflict.
Regarding oblasts and regions, in addition to weak decentralization and interregional coordination, there is a problem of uneven development and economic independence of regions. Regions are divided into donors and recipients. Such inequality reduces the independence, first of all, of those regions whose share in GDP does not exceed 3%. The vast majority of regions are still subsidized and need funds from the state budget. The three independent regions and cities remain the same – Atyrau region, the cities of Almaty and Nur-Sultan.
Public theses
The reform of the regions proposed by the President caused a mixed reaction from the public. Questions arise – what can such a change give to the development of the country, in addition to the proposed decentralization and increased independence of the regions. It is not known exactly what data was used to make such decisions.
Residents of Semey, Zhezkazgan, as well as other cities where the renaming is expected, express mostly positive feedback. The encouraging factor for the people is that Semey, as the former capital of Alash-Orda and one of the historical centers of Kazakhstan, again receives the status of a regional center after 1997.
One of the main reasons for the transformation of the regions, the president called such phenomena as the urban agglomeration around large cities, such as Almaty. In conditions when Taldykorgan becomes the regional center of the new Zhetysu region, labor migration to large cities may indeed decrease. Tokayev noted that “the inhabitants of the region are concentrated mainly around this city. It is impossible to resolve the issues of Uzynagash or Talgar while being in the city of Taldykorgan.” In a positive perspective, it is likely that these changes will increase the autonomy of the regions and will contribute to their development. However, there are no guarantees about whether the living conditions of the inhabitants of these regions will be improved and whether new jobs will be created.
Creation of new regions: ideological and national aspects
In general, these changes can be considered significant as a new stage in nation-building, as well as potential de-Sovietization. The renaming of regions, regions and other settlements is a natural process over the past 30 years of the country’s independence, as one of the methods of moving away from the Soviet past. However, the simultaneous creation of three regions at once with different territories and names is a contradictory phenomenon, both from an economic and historical and ideological point of view. On the one hand, this can be regarded as an attempt to tell the people about the significance and value of self-determination, national identity in the face of growing anxiety against the backdrop of the January events and the war in Ukraine.
Over the past decades, the nation-building policy of the state has been aimed at considering the interests of the state-forming ethnic group, as in many post-Soviet countries. This is a natural ongoing process of “Kazakhization” of regional policy, where the interests of the state-forming ethnic group, the Kazakhs, are mainly considered. As mentioned in the message, “in matters of consolidation of society, strengthening of national identity, a large role is given to the effective use of the historical heritage and cultural potential of the country.”
However, if we consider three potential areas separately, we can see a gradation of interests and understanding of these decisions through the prism of history and nation-building. One of the most positively received news is that the East Kazakhstan region has been divided and Semey will become the new regional center of the Abay region. According to the head of state, “this issue has long been raised by the inhabitants of this region. Now there are many unresolved problems in this region, the internal infrastructure is very worn out.”
If we talk about the very name of the new region, the figure of Abay is symbolic not only for the Eastern part of the country, but also for the cultural and ideological agenda of the last years of independence. Moreover, Abay, as a canonized historical figure, rarely causes controversy in rethinking and his activities, in comparison with other public or political figures of the last century. Nevertheless, there is a trend of how it becomes important in society to erect a certain personality on a cult scale.
The historical agenda in independent Kazakhstan, as in many countries with a post-Soviet legacy, was determined by the state. It was the official agenda that set the vector for which personalities could be used in shaping the picture of the past.
![](https://cabar.asia/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/33.jpg)
Similarly, with the use of names, an initiative was made to support the authorities to rename the city of Kapchagay in the Almaty region to Kunaev, in honor of the statesman, first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan Dinmukhamed Akhmedovich Kunaev. Residents of Kazakhstan launched the signing of a petition for renaming. And on March 26, 2022, the city Maslikhat announced the decision to rename it. Of all the cities in the country, besides Nur-Sultan (formerly Astana), this may be one of the most extensive settlements with the name of political and public figures of recent decades. It can be assumed that this is due to the demands of citizens for the return of the name “Astana” to the capital of the state, which were not accepted by the government. Thus, as an alternative to a large-scale renaming, the government has the opportunity to institutionally designate Kunaev as one of the key figures in the country’s history.
![](https://cabar.asia/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/44.jpg)
Kunaev, as a significant and positive political figure of the last century, is turning into a kind of social and ideological myth about an alternative Kazakhstan that “could be”. Among the people, he was famous as a modest leader, not associated with corrupt activities. In conditions when President Tokayev is carrying out reforms to eradicate nepotism and the so-called clan politics, such a move can be regarded as the beginning of a new administrative era with its inherent changes not only in power, but also in the administrative-territorial division.
It is not known exactly what the proportion of Kapchigai residents among those who signed the petition and how directly the petition influenced the government’s decision to make such a change. However, the most important question to ask is what economic and social resources will be needed to rename an entire city, despite the overwhelmingly positive response among the people.
The name Zhetysu (kaz. Zhetisu – Semirechye) also refers to the history of the last century and how important this region was for cultural and creative figures – akyns, writers. In addition to the possible regulation of the agglomeration in this area, Taldykorgan may also become a region of great historical importance. For example, in the city there is a museum named after Ilyas Dzhansugurov, a classic of Kazakh literature, whose biography reflects a large layer of the intelligentsia of the XX, which is relevant to study even today.
Zhetysu, https://tengritravel.kz/my-country/jetyisu-beskonechnyie-chudesa-na-semi-rekah-413484/
In the situation with the creation of the Ulytau (“Uly” – great, “tau” – mountain) region, the center of which will be Zhezkazgan, there is less debate in terms of history and ideology, but more required resources for the development of the region. The city now has a chance to increase and effectively distribute the budget. Such renaming and transformation, with effective management, can increase both internal and external (mainly regional) flow of tourists to the region.
In general, one can see a primordialist vector in nation-building in the new names of the regions. The changes affected the regions where the share of the state-forming ethnic group exceeds half.
However, such reforms often bypass the northern regions bordering Russia. Nevertheless, the request for renaming into names with a national character is present and gaining momentum. For example, residents of the cities of Pavlodar and Petropavlovsk have been demanding the renaming of cities to Yertis and Kyzylzhar for a long time. On April 9, active citizens launched a petition for the renaming, which has so far been signed by more than 49,000 people.
Measures to create and restructure new regions can be called the response of the state to the request for national, often based on ethnic needs, self-determination. In the conditions of the war in Ukraine and the potential migration of citizens of neighboring countries, it is important for the people to preserve their national identity, both at the personal, public and institutional level. In the growing level of mono-ethnicity, it is important for the state to revise the models of nation-building, one of the steps towards which could be such a transformation. In the message, President Tokayev, however, mentions that “our main principle of ‘unity in diversity’ is unshakable.” Therefore, the harmonious development of interethnic relations has always been and will be one of the main directions of the state policy of Kazakhstan.” The potential for the formation of a civil nation in such a case remains debatable. However, this can also be regarded as a policy of the state in response to the statements of Russian officials regarding land ownership.
Conclusion
The initiative of renaming and reforming the administrative-territorial units of the second level can lead to development, subject to the effective work of political institutions and good governance. In a situation of political and economic crisis, such a move has a national symbolism and ideological character. However, the need to allocate the budget and resources, the election of new akims may entail additional economic consequences. Despite the content, at first glance, content, there are risks that such reforms will only lead to a change in the sign without solving existing problems.
Such a measure, with effective management, has prospects for the development of new regions, the growth of the potential of existing ones and the possibility of decentralization. Moreover, this may seem like a new step in the policy of forming a national identity. However, questions remain about the timeliness, the need for these changes and the future fate of those regions that have lost certain settlements.
Before proposing such measures, it is important to conduct public opinion polls with open and accessible data so that citizens can monitor the general mood and understand the picture of why the creation of new areas is a meaningful strategic decision. Official narratives about the creation of new regions, renaming of settlements should have more clear and understandable justifications for citizens. This is also relevant given the fact that after 2011, 2019, as well as the events of January 2022, it is even more important for people to be heard and form a public agenda. Despite positive opinions and bright expectations, there are doubts about the success of this project, the impact of the reform on the development of other areas.