On-camera apologies of offenders have become a distinct genre in Kazakhstan. Speed-limit offenders, people suspected of separatism, TikTokers, businesspersons, officials and other citizens apology for their offences.
Words of remorse
At the end of 2022, Ramil Mukhoryapov, a Kazakhstan-based businessman, found himself at the centre of controversy after an ambiguous statement about the Kazakh language. He said that responding in Kazakh language to a question in Russian was a sign of “lack of culture.”
Several public activists filed a complaint against Mukhoryapov to the police, and law enforcement bodies began a pre-trial investigation “to check the fact of incitement of social, ethnic, tribal, racial, class, and religious hatred.” Shortly afterwards, Mukhoryapov apologised in public and explained that his words were misunderstood. The case against the businessman was dismissed due to the absence of evidence.
This April, representatives of the so-called “people’s council of workers of North Kazakhstan region” recorded a video with apologies to Kazakhstanis and President Tokayev. Previously, they had made a statement about the establishment of independent “People’s council of the city of Petropavlovsk” and passed the declaration that ignored the sovereignty of Kazakhstan. In the apology video, some members of the “Council” mentioned that they were misunderstood and that they did not cast doubt on the integrity of Kazakhstan. However, it did not affect the outcome of the case and the offenders were placed into the temporary detention facility.
Minister of Interior Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan Yerlan Turgumbayev claimed that the police did not force anyone to apology for their actions, and in some cases the apology could be a mitigating factor.
But can we refer to such on-camera apologies as a positive practice? CABAR.asia has talked to Karlygash Dzhamankulova, head of the International Foundation for Freedom of Speech Protection “Adil Soz”, about it.
Erosion of trust
– Please tell us if it is allowed to force offenders to apology.
– An apology is a personal opinion of every human about what happened. A confession and repentance could be regarded by court as a mitigating factor. However, no judge can coerce a person to apology for one’s opinion. In other words, no one can force him/her to apology. In reaching a verdict, the court may find a person guilty of a crime. But even in this case, it may not oblige him/her to admit guilt (this is the right of the defendant, not the obligation).
– To what extent are such public repentances voluntary?
– I guess, this question should be asked to those trial participants who have made on-camera apologies. But forcing someone to apologise is nonsense, an outrage upon personality. It contradicts universal rights and individual freedoms – the right to personal opinion.
– Why is this practice wrong?
– On-camera apologies is not a juridical or legal instrument. It is rather used as an instrument to control public opinion. It is a crude instrument that undermines trust to law enforcement bodies and the legal system. I am speaking about cases when apologies are made under duress. You are asking me this question only because you feel that it is absolutely absurd and looks more like a parody of a parody. It feels like all participants live in the simulacra of simulacra. We definitely should stray from this practice.
– Why do law enforcement bodies force people to do it? And why don’t people refuse to do it?
– It’s a good question. But it is rather rhetorical. Do you know about the theory of evolution of trust? Without going deep into it, I’d like to emphasise that flirting with public apologies, when they are not the result of sincere and personal decision, undermines public trust. And trust me, erosion of public trust first hits public institutions, the state, which rests on these very pillars.
Main photo: Freepik.com
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.