What are the reasons for interethnic clashes in Kazakhstan? Is it possible to apply the theory of “relative deprivation” in this matter? How to strengthen interethnic harmony in Kazakhstan? These and other questions are in the article by Vlad Lim (Nursultan, Kazakhstan).
The project of “Kazakhization” became a fundamental policy implemented by the Kazakhstani government with the purpose to restore the values and identity of the titular ethnic group that was undermined during Soviet times. The Kazakhization project was implemented as a response to the disappearance of Kazakh language, culture and identity in general, the process that began under the Soviet reign during the 1960s. The reforms were directed to substantially increase the role of indigenous ethnicity in all spheres of life, which provoked negative reactions and increased the outflow of ethnic minorities in subsequent years. For example, for the period between 1990 to 1997 about 1.2 million ethnic Russians left Kazakhstan, which was almost 14 percent of population . The result was the new politics of independent Kazakhstan taking into account ethnic factors employing nationalism as a politico-ideological instrument. Some authors argue that Kazakhization can be observed via campaigns that were initiated by the newly independent government, such as various attempts to erase historical memories of Russian dominance by changing historical perspectives where Russians began to be seen not as friends to Kazakh, but rather occupiers and enemies. Also, a lot of scholars pay special attention to the language policy, which also the manifestation of the Kazakhization process. And lastly, migration policy is another significant factor that constitutes an attempt to increase the role of the titular ethnicity. The government used certain migration processes to increase the total number of Kazakhs, which motivated Kazakhs living outside to come back to their homeland. As a result of such policy, the population of Kazakhs turned from minority to majority.
At the same time, Nazarbayev’s nation-building politics was trying to be balanced. It had always emphasized the importance of interethnic peace in Kazakhstan. Legislation including Constitution was adopted to promote equality among all people. It is worth to mention that the former Constitution adopted in 1993 stated that the Republic of Kazakhstan is an expression of the “will of the Kazakh people”. This Constitution was changed in 1995 to the new version to which several major corrections were introduced. For example, the phrase “will of the Kazakh people” was changed to the phrase “will of the citizens of Kazakhstan”. This minor change signalized a tremendous difference in approach because it was a sign that Kazakhstan was for all ethnic nations regardless of ethnicity.
Another example of promotion of interethnic peace was the establishment of Assembly of the people of Kazakhstan. This advisory body was created on the initiative of the first president of Kazakhstan Nazarbayev in 1995 to contribute to the development and implementation of state national policy. For almost thirty years the Assembly has been playing essential role to preserve and promote civic consent and positive development of our civic society. However, despite all of this effort several violent confrontations along ethnic lines still occurred in Kazakhstan since the independence. In some cases, the escalation was timely suppressed by state power, which allowed to avoid violence and immediately establish interethnic peace. But there are several cases, when the confrontations became violent with deaths, property damages and even subsequent migration of ethnic minorities.
Relative deprivation and ethnic clashes
A theory called “relative deprivation”, which is used in this analysis, explains violent clashes due to the existing feeling of economic deprivation: if one group is economically relatively deprived to another group than it can create grievances among the former, which generally leads to confrontations. Conflicts that took place in rural areas of Almaty, Zhambyl and Turkestan regions were examined. For the last thirty years these regions observed violent clashes between the titular ethnic group and Tajiks, Dungans, and Uyghurs respectively.
In accordance with the several credible sources, rural areas are on 3.4 times poorer than urban areas and it can explain why all these clashes took place in the rural villages[1]. It is worth to mention that in accordance with the information presented by the Ministry of National Economy, in 2019- 2020 rural areas of Turkestan Oblast are considered to be the poorest of all Oblasts and Zhambyl Oblasts took the third place in the chart[2]. Furthermore, in accordance with the statistics on the average level of salary for 2020-2021, out of all Oblasts the lowest average level of salary is in Turkestan Oblast – 35.8% less than the national average; the second lowest level is in Zhambyl Oblast – 33.1% less than the national average; and the third place is in Almaty region – 28.3% less than the national average[3].
If one considers general statistics for several years to evaluate regions with the poorest rural population, then Turkestan, Zhambyl and Almaty Oblasts are regularly at the top averaging 9,8% and 5,2% respectively. Hence, poverty is one essential precondition that causes ethnic confrontations. Inequality is also another significant variable that ignites grievances. According to the relative deprivation theory, it is inequality relative to the corresponding ethnic group that matters. Gini coefficient is well-known and recognized barometer that statistically measures the level of inequality across all regions. According to the coefficient, Turkestan, Zhambyl and Almaty Oblasts have the highest inequality among all 20 Oblasts of Kazakhstan. It shows that the theory helps to explain the causes of the clashes that occurred in these three Oblasts of Kazakhstan.
However, official statistics does not often reflect the whole picture in Kazakhstan. Therefore, the field study was conducted in order to carefully analyze whether the numbers confirm the reality: three pairs of cases with the most similar features, where the titular ethnic group coexists with ethnic minorities such as Dungans, Uyghurs, Tajiks were selected (see Table 1).
Table 1. Sample villages with non-Kazakh ethnic majority
These cases are the most relevant for the analysis due to the most similarities. Firstly, non-Kazakh ethnic groups form the majority over certain territories of the Southern part of Kazakhstan. Secondly, these pairs represent examples of peaceful and non-peaceful coexistence of an ethnic group with the titular ethnicity. Thirdly, all pairs in the chosen sample live in a quite similar conditions in rural areas of relatively similar size in the same Oblasts and under the same administrations. Also, all of them are either involved in an agriculture or a small business. Fourthly, all pairs have a relatively significant amount of respective minority group, who coexists with Kazakhs. Lastly, the patterns of violent clashes that occurred between the ethnic groups have a lot of similarities.
Dungans, Uyghurs, and Tajiks in Kazakhstan: Causes of violent ethnic clashes
During the field study, data were collected from 35 interviews and 140 questionnaires. The age range of the respondents was 29-56 years old, where 50% were men and 50% were women. Interview and survey data showed that a relative deprivation among Kazakhs occurred in places where ethnic minorities owned large businesses and real estate.
A straightforward variation in the answers of the respondents between the Sample 1 and the Sample 2 was revealed. As one can see from the Table 1, the Sample 1 represents villages that have experienced a clash and the Sample 2 represents villages that have not experienced violence. Overall, I received 102 responses from the representatives of Kazakh ethnic group. The results from the answers were the following:
Table 2. Sample of interview questions
There are three ethnic minorities, which represent a great proportion of the population in certain regions of Kazakhstan which and can be examined for this study: Uyghurs (1.4 percent of the overall population), Tajiks (0.2 percent), and Dungans (0.3 percent). All these ethnic minorities live in the Southern part of Kazakhstan, specifically neighboring Zhambyl, Almaty, and Turkestan Oblasts3.These responses indicate on the existing attitude of local Kazakhs in the regions. It also can explain the existence of grievances showing that from my sample size the majority of Kazakhs from Sample 1 had a feeling of relative deprivation, while from the Sample 2 only minority had the same feeling. Thus, provided that the poverty exists in the villages of both samples, the perception of economic inequality relative to the respective ethnicity can indeed cause a variation between two samples.
Map 1. 14 oblasts of Kazakhstan
Dungans’ community in Kazakhstan had increased in the first decade of the 21st century. Currently there is more Dungans in Kazakhstan (62 thousand), than in Kyrgyzstan (60 thousand) and Uzbekistan (three thousand)[4]. Dungans in Kazakhstan tend to adhere to high degree of geographic concentration: almost 85 percent of all Dungans in Kazakhstan live in Kordai district, which is in Zhambyl Oblast, where this ethnic group makes up 33 percent of all population[5]. Dungans mostly stay rural and agricultural people, who support the tradition of having many children and large families. In Masanchi, Sortobe and Zhalpak-Tobe Dungans’ traditions and folklore are well-preserved and relatively widespread. Dungan Association of Kazakhstan (DAK) plays a big role in preservation of Dungans’ identity and culture. Masanchi and Sortobe are neighboring villages and identical in many respects. As in many villages in Kazakhstan poverty and unemployment are very evident. Most of the people here are involved in agriculture and small entrepreneurship: they run various small businesses such as local cafes with Dungan cuisine, markets and shops. In both of these villages Dungans and Kazakhs coexist together, which eventually led to a clash at the beginning of 2020. It is important to emphasize that Dungans are descendants of Chinese Muslims, who occupied Kazakh and Kyrgyz lands around two centuries ago. During ethnic clashes one year ago Dungans turned out to be the major victims because all casualties and property damages were suffered by them. It is relevant for all the incidents of ethnic clashes that were previously analyzed. It was revealed that a lot of Dungans moved to neighboring Kyrgyzstan right after the incident and only small percentage of them came back. However, there were still a lot of Dungans, who were willing to move abroad. Obviously, Dungans and Kazakhs had different views on the incident.
Kazakhstani Uyghurs mostly occupy Shelek and Chundja villages located in Almaty Oblasts. Uyghurs’ ancestors also moved to Kazakhstan from China. Also, Shelek is an intermediate point between Almaty and China. And a lot of tourists from around the world used to visit the place because it is an intermediate point to various touristic sights: Charyn canyon, Kapchagai and Bartogay reservoirs, Kolsay lake etc. However, one of the most profitable business in the region is tobacco cultivation. And since the 1970s Uyghurs have been playing significant role in tobacco business, which generated a lot of profit for them[6]. This put Uyghurs forward and made their average economic position generally higher than local Kazakhs. The confrontation eventually sparked the clash in 2006.
Tajiks in Kazakhstan appeared on the territory of contemporary Kazakhstan in the 1920s, when the government of the USSR transported several thousands of Tajik families on the territory with the purpose to improve local irrigation agriculture. They were dislocated to the area of the modern Saryagash region because the climate was very suitable for irrigation with its warm and sunny weather. The arriving Tajiks settled on swampy, previously not developed collective farmlands, which in several decades were turned into vegetable gardens by them. Neighboring Bostandyk/Yntymak are very identical villages in many respects. Both places are very poor and only around two thousand people, mostly Tajiks, live in each of the villages. Both of the villages are located in the Saryagash district, which is famous for its recreation complexes, where people can improve their health by visiting different massages and other health treatments. However, people from the villages of interest are quite isolated from the activities of recreational complexes. Most of the local population are involved in agriculture. In 2015 an ethnic clash occurred in Bostandyk and Yntymak. In accordance with the official version, the beginning of the clash was a private conflict between a Kazakh and a Tajik resulted in the murder of a former not far from Bostandyk, in the neighboring Yntymak. Relatives of the killed began to demand a punishment for the guilty on street meetings. On February 5 in Yntymak about 200 representatives of Tajik nationality and 250-300 representatives of Kazakh nationality assembled, armed with truncheons and pieces of metal for a fight. As a result, houses, retail outlets and cars were burnt, and people were injured during the fights. In addition, windows and doors in a Tajik school were broken[7].
Conclusions and recommendations
Thus, to decrease the possibility of ethnic confrontations in the future, the government shall, first and foremost, focus to solve the problem of poverty in rural areas. It is important to mention that after the recent incident in Masanchi village, the government implemented the state program called: “Atameken”. The program was initiated by the National Chamber of Entrepreneurs. The program was launched in Kordai district to “relieve social tension among the population and significantly solve the issues of unemployment via involvement into entrepreneurship”[8]. It shows that government began to understand the destructive and dangerous role of poverty. However, it is still unclear how effective the program will be over time. Nevertheless, the initiatives that aims to fight with poverty is necessary in many rural areas of Kazakhstan.
It would be beneficial to look back and evaluate how well the government of Kazakhstan was able to maintain interethnic peace and stability. Despite the fact that several occasions of ethnic confrontations happened over the course of independence, it would still be fair to say that all of them were suppressed or prevented by the government in a way that no incident turned to extreme violence. Out of all post-Soviet countries that received independence relatively recently, Kazakhstan can fairly be considered as a successful example of interethnic peace and stability. If we can make parallels with neighboring Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, two countries that experienced extreme form of violence, Kazakhstan was able to avoid big confrontations. Nevertheless, the incidents of ethnic clashes that occurred are evidence of certain weaknesses that still exist in the system. From current analysis it is possible to extract several conclusions. First of all, places with high concentration of certain ethnic minority group that coexists with the titular ethnic group are the places where confrontations are more likely to occur. Secondly, poverty and inequality are two factors that directly impact on ethnic violence. Therefore, in order to prevent future occurrences, it is important to start with poverty focusing on the related places.
[1] https://lsm.kz/samye-bednye-kazahstancy-prozhivayut-v-yuko
[2] https://timeskz.kz/70682-v-kakih-regionah-kazahstana-samyy-vysokiy-uroven-bednosti.html
[3] https://stat.gov.kz/
[4] http://russian.people.com.cn/31516/6901040.html
[5] https://nomad.su/?a=3-201011150038
[6] Yerganat Uralbay. “Uyguri Sheleka: “gosudarstvo vashe, a zemlya nasha” (Uyghurs from Shelek: “The government is yours, but the land is ours”).
[7] https://rus.azattyq.org/a/saryagash-besporyadki/26833482.html
[8] https://atameken.kz/ru/projects/34987-v-kordajskom-rajone-zapustili-atameken-oldau-ortalyy