What are think tanks of Kazakhstan today? What role do experts play in shaping the country’s political course? How is expert knowledge translated into tangible programs and real reforms? We asked Dr. Vera Axyonova, a researcher at the University of Vienna, these and many other questions.
Vera Axyonova is a Marie Skłodowska Curie REWIRE Fellow with the University of Vienna’s Political Communication Research Group, where she explores the nexus between think tanks, media, and policymaking in non-democratic and hybrid political settings. Prior to this, she was managing director of Academics in Solidarity in Berlin, a fellow with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and an associate researcher of the EUCAM program. Dr. Axyonova holds a PhD degree from the Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences and is a founding co-chair of the ECPR Research Network on Statehood, Sovereignty, and Conflict.
CABAR.asia: In your research, you explore the influence of think tanks in non-democratic and hybrid political contexts. How do you see the role of think tanks in Kazakhstan’s predominantly hybrid political environments, especially when compared to their counterparts in liberal democracies?
Beginning with the notion of hybridity, the conventional dichotomy between “democracy” and “autocracy” often used to describe governance structures fails to capture the nuanced reality. The political landscape, rather than being a binary, spans a diverse spectrum. This spectrum includes highly repressive and fully entrenched autocracies, potentially extending to totalitarian rule, as well as firmly established democracies characterized by robust, functioning institutions.
The essence of a regime’s democratic nature extends beyond institutional frameworks. Critical to this assessment are democratic and liberal practices. A nation’s democratic status is determined not only by electoral processes or the principle of electability. Equally vital is the existence of a free space for civil society engagement, adherence to civil liberties and rights, and the enforcement of the rule of law.
Contemporary definitions of democracy incorporate these facets and thus are based not only on electability of a country’s senior leadership. Thus, the degree to which a country aligns with an “ideal” democracy or approaches an “ideal” (in the Weberian sense) autocracy varies depending on each country’s specific circumstances.
Any political system that doesn’t squarely fit within the extremes of either fully consolidated democracy or fully consolidated autocracy forms part of a “spectrum of hybridity.” Depending on the typology of political regimes, all Central Asian states can be classified as autocracies, albeit with varying degrees of hybridity. This hybrid nature influences the availability — or lack thereof — of a “free space” for the operation of think tanks and similar entities.
Turning our attention to the realm of think tanks, the academic discourse around these bodies typically views them as institutionalized expert groups, albeit with differing definitions underpinning the term. Broadly, think tanks are entities dedicated to systematically studying one or more policy domains, aiming to inform governments or other state bodies with researched insights and policy recommendations and/or to shape public discourse.
These institutions are categorized based on their functional and structural features. There are state-affiliated or quasi-state analytical centers, closely integrated with government structures, serving and echoing state interests, and predominantly state-funded. Contrasted to them are independent analytical centers. A pivotal question in the context of these bodies concerns the nature and extent of their independence — be it from government influences, donor expectations, or constraints of academic, financial, political, or ideological biases.
Different typologies of think tanks extend beyond these categories. Included in the broader taxonomy are university-linked think tanks, as well as hybrid models like think-and-do-tanks and advocacy tanks. These not only engage in research but also venture into activism, non-governmental organization work, and even political lobbying. Kazakhstan hosts a diverse array of think tanks, representing these various types and fulfilling differing roles and functions within the country’s socio-political and policy-making ecosystems.
However, the landscape of think tanks in Kazakhstan remains relatively nascent, both in terms of quantity of these institutions and their overall dynamism. Most of them are geographically anchored in Astana and Almaty, and are in one way or the other linked to the state.
Turning to the functions these think tanks perform, literature scrutinizing such entities in illiberal democracies or de-democratizing states (as observed in some Central and Eastern European countries) delineates three core functions:
- Advisory: This pertains to providing specific, pragmatic recommendations to address concrete policy problems. Rather than being swayed by ideological mandates, experts focus on tangible issues, striving for effective solutions.
- Opposition: In this case, think tanks challenge the prevailing political trajectory or certain decisions enacted by the governing bodies. This involves proffering alternative strategies or divergent perspectives on the nation’s political course.
- Legitimation: This entails endorsing and validating the political choices of the ruling elites. Particularly vital during periods of upheaval, this role aids crisis mitigation. Yet, even outside turbulent times, it plays a crucial role in cementing political stability and ensuring public support for the policies in place.
In the context of Kazakhstan, the advisory and legitimation functions are prominent. Whereas the opposition function manifests primarily as measured critiques of political decisions, rather than overt challenging of a political course, and such critiques rarely dominate the public discourse.
CABAR.asia: You touched upon an interesting sub-type of the structures we are discussing today – think-and-do-tanks – can you tell us more about them? In terms of their identity, how do Kazakhstani think tanks interact with and differentiate themselves from international NGOs or research institutions operating in the region? How do geopolitical considerations, especially the influence of major powers like Russia, China and the US affect the work and positioning of think tanks in Kazakhstan?
“Think-and-do-tanks” frequently adopt the watchdog role, overseeing political decision-making and reform implementation. Beyond monitoring, they often inform the public about these reforms and partake in project-based activities. In Kazakhstan, such think tanks, particularly those focusing on human rights and the rule of law, typically operate independently from the state. They are known to collaborate with international bodies, including NGOs specializing in these areas. Nevertheless, there are only very few such think tanks in Kazakhstan.
Regarding the impact of major powers, the concept of “think-tank diplomacy” or expert diplomacy merits attention. While typically seen as part of public diplomacy, think-tank diplomacy in fact extends beyond the public domain and encompasses elements of discrete, behind-closed-doors diplomacy. The diplomatic functions of think tanks are varied; they may include advising governments during international negotiations, running training programs for diplomats, fostering networking and inter-state relations, and gathering and analyzing specialist information to guide international organizations.
In the geopolitical theater of Central Asia, both Russia and China have actively positioned themselves as dominant stakeholders, deeply engaging in expert diplomacy. Taking cues from the U.S.’s approach to “soft power”, both nations are meticulously forging formal and informal expert networks. Russia crafts these networks either through its pre-existing platforms, like the Valdai Club, or via intergovernmental organizations, such as the Eurasian Economic Union. Concurrently, China has established several international expert networks, for instance linked to the “One Belt, One Road” initiative. While these networks, often rooted in personal connections, can catalyze international collaboration, they can also be strategically leveraged to advance geopolitical objectives or even propagate ideological narratives.
CABAR.asia: Based on your studies, how have think tanks in Central Asia been instrumental in providing policymakers with knowledge and expertise during times of crisis (political, economic, COVID, others…)? Can you cite specific instances where their input was pivotal in shaping policy responses?
Exploring the impact exerted by think tanks is a notably challenging endeavor, primarily because it involves delineating a clear, causal trajectory from the inception of an idea to its ultimate manifestation in policy-making. For instance, assessing how a report published by a think tank influenced a specific policy decision is a complex task. This complexity relates to the concept of equifinality, which posits that multiple, distinct causes can lead to the same outcome, or a single result may have various origins. Compounding this difficulty is the inherent opacity surrounding political decision-making, coupled with the researchers’ limited access to the internal machinations of political processes. While not impossible, tracing the complete path from policy recommendations offered by think tanks to the resultant policy choices is an arduous process.
Several methodologies are available to tackle the intricate task of researching the influence of think tanks on policy. An effective approach involves an in-depth analysis of a specific policy field, piecing together the chronology of decisions. By conducting expert interviews, researchers can unearth the origins of particular recommendations and how these advices were conveyed to policymakers. My own interviews with both state and non-state think tank representatives in Kazakhstan revealed a tendency among experts to be circumspect about assessing their own impact on political decisions. Yet, diverse channels and strategies for exerting influence certainly exist.
Experts embedded in state-affiliated think tanks may not always consciously strive to sway policy, but they possess the capacity to do so. A large portion of their work constitutes confidential analytics, not intended for public release. After navigating several layers of internal review within these think tanks, selected analytical reports and briefs (though not all) reach the desks of high-ranking officials. Thus, an expert has a built-in avenue to at least inform, if not directly influence, decision-makers. However, if one is a mid-tier, rather than a leading expert in a think tank, it’s often unclear how their input is received or if it even reaches the “influential desk” at all. In such scenarios, experts might only gauge their impact when they recognize their insights or language reflected in politicians’ speeches or embedded within governmental agendas.
Specialists within non-governmental think tanks adopt a distinct approach. Their modus operandi to shape both political and public narratives hinges on public engagement, primarily by disseminating their analytical outputs via social and mainstream media. When an autonomous expert crafts a detailed and high-calibre analysis on a pressing issue, and pairs it with an adept media outreach strategy, it is probable that policy-makers will take note. By generating substantial public discourse, such experts enhance their potential to shape political narratives and occasionally, the ensuing policy decisions. Consequently, they find themselves increasingly sought-after for events and their viewpoints gain prominence.
CABAR.asia: How have national media outlets in Kazakhstan acted as intermediaries in transmitting expert opinions to the public?
As previously highlighted, media and social networks serve as principal conduits for non-governmental think tanks to exert influence. Conversely, for state-affiliated think tanks, these platforms aren’t particularly pivotal in influencing political decisions. That said, they usually do collaborate with specific state-controlled media outlets. Within this realm, the emphasis is primarily on legitimizing actions, while the advisory aspect takes a backseat, often materializing through confidential reports.
CABAR.asia: You mention that opinions from expert elites can help policymakers legitimise their decisions. How has this dynamic played out in Kazakhstan, especially in situations where policy decisions might be controversial or unpopular?
Before embarking on significant or potentially contentious policy decisions, an assessment of public opinion is conducted. Typically, this is the purview of state-linked analytical entities or independent organizations commissioned by the state for such analyses. The spectrum of intricate issues can span subjects from deliberations on adjusting the retirement age to orchestrating vaccination campaigns against threats like COVID-19. Reflecting on the latter, a multitude of studies have been undertaken by both state-linked and independent analytical bodies to discern the populace’s receptiveness to vaccination. Monitoring these sentiments is pivotal for preserving the nation’s socio-political harmony. Yet, often the focus narrows to understanding public acceptance levels of a given policy and identifying potential thresholds that might jeopardize the stability of the governing structure. Beyond mere sentiment tracking, think tanks can also act as de facto amplifiers of official stances, with expert commentaries in public forums lending greater gravitas to specific agendas.
CABAR.asia: Given the unique challenges of operating in hybrid political systems, how do think tanks in Kazakhstan navigate the fine line between providing objective policy advice and avoiding political repercussions? Are there strategies they employ to maintain their credibility and independence?
Scholarly examinations of think tanks have put forward a concept known as the “independence paradox” or the paradox of distance and influence. This paradox reflects a universal truth across different political systems: to exert influence on policy-making, think tanks must maintain close ties with political decision-makers. This entails proximity to power hubs and nurturing both formal and, crucially, informal connections. Conversely, to uphold their credibility, relevance, and objectivity—attributes rooted in scientific methodology rather than ideological biases—experts need to maintain an appropriate distance from political figures. Particularly in democracies, but not only, think tanks navigate a delicate balance between gaining access to influential circles and preserving their political neutrality.
In Kazakhstan, and indeed globally, the question of who shapes the research agenda of think tanks is crucial to their intellectual independence. Whether experts within these institutions can select topics of interest and relevance, or if their focus is steered by state directives or private funding sources, has significant implications. This dynamic can even be influenced by well-intentioned donors championing causes like national democratization or gender equality. For instance, Ukrainian think tanks, predominantly independent of government influence, often find themselves swayed by external funding sources. Prior to 2022, the extent to which Ukrainian think tanks could completely autonomously set their agendas was debatable, due to their relative dependence on international donor funds. If a donor prioritizes an area like feminist foreign policy, they might encourage its study, even if other issues are more pressing locally.
Comparatively, Kazakhstan sees substantially less foreign donor funding than Ukraine, especially recently, leading to reduced donor dependency of think tanks. Following the gradual withdrawal of donor funding from Central Asia since the late 2000s, many independent think tanks and NGOs faced closure due to financial challenges, as not all organizations were ready to adapt to state-sponsored models. This reduction in funding sources has inevitably contracted the operational scope of Kazakhstani think tanks. However, the state-independent think tanks who survived adapted by diversifying their funding, which positively impacts their political and intellectual independence. Thus, for non-governmental think tanks, independence hinges on financial diversification and the leeway in agenda-setting granted by their benefactors. For state-affiliated bodies, the dilemma of balancing access and autonomy, as noted in the aforementioned paradox, is somewhat moot due to their inherent lack of independence.
CABAR.asia: In the context of Kazakhstan, how does the public perceive information and recommendations provided by think tanks, especially when relayed through national media? Does the source of the information (local vs. international think tanks) impact its reception and trustworthiness?
To address this question, it would be necessary to conduct a sociological survey. In Ukraine, such surveys are conducted regularly, notably by the Democratic Initiatives Foundation (DIF), which gauges public perceptions of NGOs and think tanks. However, in Kazakhstan, I have not encountered surveys focusing on the public’s views regarding individual experts or think tanks. So, my answer is based on assumptions.
These assumptions must be prefaced with the caveat that public views of think tanks vary across different demographic segments. For the younger, politically-engaged segment, particularly students and those with a general interest in politics who lean towards liberal ideologies, it is easy to assume that they regard independent think tanks as more credible information sources. They are likely to find the topics and research presented by these organizations more captivating.
Contrastingly, state-run analytical entities often produce analytics that might be perceived as unengaging or mundane by the general audience, frequently limited to mere summaries of their activities, such as conducting meetings or roundtables. Such content, arguably, holds little appeal for politically conscious youth, who might find it lacks substantive insights into the nation’s political dynamics. In contrast, non-state analytical organizations provide more intriguing, insightful analytical content and opinion polls. Nonetheless, it is important to underscore that these are assumptions on my part, lacking empirical backing from specific studies to confirm them.
CABAR.asia: Considering the evolving political and media landscapes in Kazakhstan, what future trends do you anticipate for the relationship between think tanks, media, and policymakers in the region? What other main challenges faced by think tanks operating in Kazakhstan, except for obvious political constraints, funding sources, and operational freedoms may appear?
I approach predictions with a degree of caution, grounding my views in empirical research findings. My interviews with think tank experts from Kazakhstan yielded varied interpretations of the current situation and anticipated future trajectories. Fundamentally, the consensus converged on two potential outcomes following a change in leadership: an era of liberalization or the inverse – an intensification of constraints.
Upon Kasym-Jomart Tokayev’s accession to power in 2019, a discernible liberalization was observed. However, the events of January 2022 introduced a divergence in perceptions among the experts. Some contended that the government started placing greater emphasis on expert opinions, elevating the stature of informed advisory roles. This shift was perceived as less of an embodiment of the “Listening State” and more the acknowledgment that in the post-January phase, expert insights and societal moods could not be ignored. Should this view prevail, we may forecast an optimistic trajectory where experts, even those independent of political affiliations, could potentially influence policymakers. Conversely, a section of my interviewees held a more guarded view. While they recognised the initial shift towards liberalization, they anticipated it to be transient, predicting an eventual reversion to a more restrictive stance, particularly concerning civil liberties and the freedom to articulate dissenting opinions. I remain hopeful that the value of objective expertise, rather than mere institutional loyalty, will continue to gain traction.
Main image: openart.ai