Kazakhstan has approved the information doctrine. Its purpose is to ensure information security in the country “amid historical turbulence.” Will the document be able to protect freedom of speech, which is recognised in the doctrine as the basis of interaction between participants of information sphere?
More regulation?
In March 2023, Kazakhstan approved the information doctrine. It reflects “the philosophy and spirit of formation of modern state information policy,” as the authors wrote. The authors, figuratively speaking, indicated the path for everything that could be fit into such wide concepts as information policy and information sphere.
This wideness can be seen in a list of measures to be taken under the doctrine. These measures concern improvement of quality of Kazakhstan media product and its promotion at the global level, formation of critical thinking in the audience, and the need to have national values dominate in the information field, and the need to create mechanisms of curbing foreign information influence, and the desire to improve the legal base of the media sector.
Such documents, according to media lawyer Olga Didenko, often declare serious changes, but their implementation causes problems. For example, additional requirements set forth in the law only increase the regulation of the media sphere, instead of easing the work of journalists.
“The doctrine almost straightforwardly points out the need of further regulation of social media, messengers, popular internet resources, bloggers, influencers,” said Roman Reimer, lawyer, cofounder of the legal foundation ‘Erkindik kanaty’. “The doctrine says that these very parts of the domestic internet space create risks of large-scale misinformation and manipulation by public opinion based on the politicisation of the latter.”
The point here is about the section of the doctrine, which describes influence of new media products on people’s minds.
According to the estimation of Diana Okremova, director of human rights foundation “Legal Media Centre”, additional state regulation designed to take care of information security, could lead to more fake news in practice. “The more restrictions, the more misinformation. And the idea will be discredited,” Okremova said.
Wide interpretation
Journalists fear that some points of the doctrine could restrict freedom of speech in the country. In an attempt to improve the information policy, the state is going “to counter false narratives” and respond “to threats of negative information influence”.
Another disadvantage of the doctrine, which is emphasised by media representatives, is the possibility of interpreting its points depending on certain circumstances and even to turn positive aspects against the media.
“There are concerns that information security in the doctrine would be used to suppress undesirable persons who ask “detrimental” questions inside the country,” said Dmitry Dubovitsky, founder and host of the YouTube channel “They are coming to us.”
According to Roman Reimer, the very concept of information security is wide and leaves room for various interpretations. For example, according to Diana Okremova, security is seen in the doctrine as protection from foreign destructive influence.
“This problem needs to be solved,” Okremova said. “But it remains unclear which information could be considered as destructive by authorities. Getting back to reality: what we have now is strong dependence on the Russian information space. To stay safe we need to prohibit all Russian propaganda channels. But we understand that no one would do this given this political situation in Kazakhstan.”
Links of one chain
According to the doctrine, full-fledged democratisation and political modernisation requires Kazakhstan to avoid extra regulation in media work. But along with it, Kazakhstan drafts a new law “On mass media”, which was repeatedly criticised by human rights defenders and journalists.Law drafters were criticised for introducing such a notion as press card for journalists. It can be issued only to journalists with no criminal record, with a contract signed with the media outlet, with media experience of at least three years, and diploma of higher education as a journalist or in a related field. Press card must give access to events for media, and a range of various material and non-material benefits. Human rights defenders have taken this norm as discrediting the aspiring journalists, at a minimum. At a maximum, it deprives undesirable journalists of a chance to communicate with representative of authorities.
Moreover, there was a really breakthrough norm in the concept and the draft law itself, which was drafted by human rights defenders – the limitation period was set for journalistic materials. In the existing law, there is no limitation period. It means that a journalist can be sued over the material, which was published decades ago. It puts media representatives into a rather vulnerable position. But when the draft was submitted for public discussion, it was found out that officials removed this progressive norm (the limitation period appeared in the new draft law dated April 26, after experts had discussed the information doctrine – Editorial staff).
Another novelty for Kazakhstan journalists will be the publication of the list of persons who get foreign funding. On the one hand, journalists who receive foreign grants are not against transparency as they urge the state to be more transparent. On the other hand, human rights defenders fear that it could become another leverage on independent media, just like in Russia. In Russia, media funded from abroad are put on the list of foreign agents, which hinders their work in the country.Based on these facts, Roman Reimer said that there are no inconsistencies between the doctrine and other changes in media, “Given the fact that the doctrine is designed to limit the freedom of speech in the country in general and the work “of new entities in the media sphere”, in particular, I believe the law “On mass media” and the list of foreign funding are links of one chain.”
Main photo: Freepik
This publication was funded by the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of IWPR and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.