Authorities of Kazakhstan emphasise the importance of development of various ethnic cultures and want people to think about their civic identity. Such attempts were made by government ideologues many times, yet they remained in the old, Nazarbayev’s Kazakhstan. Second president Tokayev tells that the symbol of identity must be the passport and flag of Kazakhstan, while deputies of the ruling party Amanat propose to remove the column “ethnicity” from documents.
Late de-Sovietisation
Policy documents declared during Nursultan Nazarbayev’s presidency that were meant to build the civic nation are taken differently in Kazakhstan. Some claim that the National Identity Doctrine (was adopted in 2010), the national idea “Mengilik Yel” (2012; the name is translated from Kazakh as “eternal country”) or national programme “Rukhani zhangyru” (2017; the name is translated from Kazakh as “spiritual rebirth”) helped keep interethnic accord.
Others tend to believe that they have not had a significant impact. According to Member of Parliament Aidos Sarym, all nation-building and decolonisation issues have been often sidelined by authorities. In early nineties, the number of Kazakhs in the country was low, nearly 40 per cent, and in the 2000s political reforms were not on the agenda because petrodollars were used to resolve social problems.
“When the constitution was adopted in 1995, we had to make a shift to local governance in three years. 26 years have passed, and we still have not moved to local governance. And such problems related to the choice of authoritarian model, its consolidation have led to the situation when the selected model of the market and capitalism could not contain the growing population and caused discontent with the quality of decolonisation and de-Sovietisation among people,” Aidos Sarym said.
According to experts, in recent years there have been changes in the sociocultural image of cities and towns. Russian speakers began to learn the state language, it is especially obvious in cities with the outbreak of the war in Ukraine.
“Putin in one-two years has made more for the nation-building in Kazakhstan than we have in the last 30 years of independence,” said political analyst, head of think-tank “A+Analytics”, Farkhad Kasenov.
One of the studies held by “A+Analytics” has shown that the number of people who believe that Russia threatens Kazakhstan as a country has increased. Previously, there were 15 per cent of such people, and now there are about 30 per cent. “There is an awareness that there is a possible external enemy, and external enemy always unites people as people do not want war like in Ukraine. The feeling of threat and danger is in the air,” he pointed at the atmosphere in the republic.
However, the situation in the country is diverse. For example, studies in the towns of Karaganda region, where mostly Russian speakers reside, show that the war in Ukraine has not affected their views.
“There are towns there, where young people leave and never come back to. We believed that the flow (of people leaving – Editor) would decrease because of such events, and that Russian citizenship would not be as attractive as before. But it did not happen,” said sociologist Kamila Kovyazina during the discussion at Jana Qazaqstan in the Nazarbayev University on June 2.
What can unite them?
Meanwhile, experts see there are problems in consolidation of society. For 30 years of independence, citizens have failed to speak one language, failed to create common unbreakable values, and live in different information bubbles. Any question raises hot debates and polarisation of attitudes. According to official data, 80 per cent of Kazakhstanis speak the state language, while only 49 per cent use it in their daily lives. However, this statistical data is exaggerated, according to political analyst Farkhad Kasenov.
“Results of some studies have shown obvious discorrelation 70 to 30. It means that 70 per cent speak Russian and use it and only 30 per cent speak and use Kazakh language. This is a shocking data. Our problem is that Kazakhs do not speak Kazakh,” Kasenov said.
Historian Aliya Bolatkhan studies national identity and interethnic relations during the Soviet period in Kazakhstan. She believes that Kazakhstanis often take the concept “nation” as the synonym of the word “ethnos”, which is wrong. National identity is usually taken in terms of formal signs such as citizenship and subsequent economic relations.
“This is not quite a successful version of nation-building,” said Aliya Bolatkhan. “It is important that citizens have a common feeling of belonging to one society, which shares cultural and historical dimensions. For example, there is a cuisine in Kazakhstan, which was formed as a result of the historical background of all of its residents. Consequently, it is national. It is important not to confuse it with the Kazakh or Uighur cuisine because cuisine of these ethnic groups is the cultural background of separate ethnic groups in the past.”
According to the researcher, Kazakhstanis have some common points in their common history, traditions regardless of their ethnic background, “But they should be revealed, explained, strengthened, to form understanding of the single nation, that we (citizens of Kazakhstan – Editor) are not a made-up construct,” said Aliya Bolatkhan.
Who are the Kazakhs?
According to the parliament, the national programme “Ult Kuru” (from Kazakh, nation-building) will be introduced soon. Some deputies suggest removing the column “ethnicity” from international passports. It is big question whether citizens would support this identity reset.
“Now we need to hold discussions again, speak again about who Kazakhs are, what historical responsibility they have, how we are going to unite the people. What do they say in the world? Russian Kazakhs, Korean Kazakhs. Yet each one remains who they are. But the general state identity will be the Kazakh one,” Aidos Sarym explained the idea to journalists in the parliament on April 27.
Mukhtarbek Shaikemelev, expert in interethnic relations, said that many problems, including defining the identity, happen because the Kazakhs are not confident in their own status.
“They go between extremes. From understanding that we are “above” and all the rest are below, to some kind of self-derogation, another extreme, uncertainty about own status. It all comes generally from the history, when nomadic identity and Kazakhs were deemed backward, Kazakh language was deemed backward. Identity seems to be very drifting, very changing, depending on external circumstances. There’s more external pressure – we do not change our rhetoric towards international one. Once there’s less pressure, the vector tends towards ethnocratic elements,” Shaikemelev said during discussion at Jana Qazaqstan in the Nazarbayev University on June 2.
The expert called the work of the Assembly of People of Kazakhstan effective. Mukhtarbek Shaikemelev proposed to introduce Kazakh ethnic and cultural associations to the Assembly to resolve conflicts between the Kazakhs and other ethnic groups, which happened often.
“The state supports ethnic and cultural differences, inherent worth, importance of each ethnic group, its language and culture via the Assembly. However, they want to build common identity. It is very difficult to build a single identity, yet emphasising ethnic differences. It has inherent contradictions in it,” Shaikemelev said.
Intellectuals and democracy
Political analyst Farkhad Kasenov emphasised the problems of political system in Kazakhstan. According to him, the ethnonym “Kazakh” can become a polytonym, which unites each and every citizen once democratisation of social and political relations takes place.
“The question of democratic system and powers of authority plays an important role in becoming aware of own responsibility for the country’s future. How many citizens are aware of deputies who represent their interests? Can we call a deputy, whom we voted for, to complain about some problems? If we don’t have it, the level of trust in authorities is very low. Democracy contributes to civil awareness, develops civic consciousness,” said Farkhad Kasenov.
Billions could be allocated to state programmes of nation-building and many strategies could be drafted, yet it all comes down to resources, said sociologist Yeset Yesengaraev. And it’s not only about the authors of those programmes.
“As our sense-makers, intellectual groups cannot even make new senses, all programmes will end the same. And it raises a question not to authorities, but to intellectuals of our society, who, unfortunately, are not productive to the extent they need to be to make our society change,” Yesengarayev said.
According to the expert, intellectual development is not the privilege of authority; authority is the object of influence of intellectuals. But the problem is that the social-humanitarian thinking is underdeveloped in Kazakhstan. It prevents from the full-scale modernisation of the society. According to Yesengarayev, calls of authorities to changes will not help citizens value their passport and their country.
“Thanks to the fact that Baltic states are situated in the periphery, yet they are Europe, there are more people who want to learn Latvian, Estonian or Lithuanian than in other republics of the former Soviet Union. Russian speakers, including ethnic Russians, have more motivation to learn languages of their countries than citizens living in Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan if they want to live in Baltic states. Therefore, the question is about the cultural prestige of any given language, how much patriots, including the Kazakh intelligentsia, are able to contribute to increase this potential. Very often, it turns out that they are not very (able – Editor),” said Yeset Yesengarayev.
According to him, authority must stop bringing excessive pressure on the civil sector and entrepreneurs. A strong civil society is very important in terms of nation-building.
“We should not complicate life to businesses, we should not silence those who are not radicals (civic activists – Editor),” the expert said. “We need to have the societal context, which will have an impact on authority not only via streets, but via soft power.”
The most vivid example of growing civil consciousness, which is envied by Kazakhstan, is Ukraine. But the price of this outcome is too high for any nation. President Tokayev will receive the analytical report about the current process of nation-building by the end of this year. The new strategy is expected to be based on recommendations given by the expert community.
Main photo: Anar Bekbasova