Recent events convincingly show the capabilities of our citizens. Dimash Kudaibergen, Genadiy Golovkin, Kanat Islam, Marat Bisengaliev, Jansaya Andumalik, Dinara Saduakasova, Alan Buribaev and many other of our compatriots have made and continue making not only themselves but our entire country famous all over the world. And this often happens not because, but despite colossal and multi-billion image projects of our regime, considering we are still, even though less often, are called Boratstan.
If you take the level of education, healthcare, social welfare and other social spheres together with institutes that were created after Kazakhstan’s gaining of independence, then you will see that based on the integral indicator of index of human development, we were at the top of the group with a high HDI. We were number 54 in 2015, and were ahead of such countries as Bulgaria, China, Turkey, Georgia, etc.
On the competitiveness index we take 53rd spot ahead of Tukey, Slovenia, Georgia, Romania, etc., Thus, even based on these two important indicators we were comparable in developmental trends with European countries. However, latest data shows that for the past few years we made no headway on these issues and even started to lag behind.
We are at the 83rd spot on the social progress index and only at the 82nd spot in the world, on the Legatum prosperity index. However, compared with the freedom index, compiled by the Freedom House in 2016 (where Kazakhstan is at the 165th place, ahead of Russia and other post-Soviet countries, but behind many African countries), situation looks dire.
In the annual rating of cities based on the quality of life, compiled by the international consulting company Mercer, Almaty, the biggest city in Kazakhstan is only at the 178th spot out of 231, behind Moscow, Kiev, Erevan and St. Petersburg, only being ahead of some African and Middle Eastern cities.
Index of country’s ecological effectiveness in 2016 places us at number 69 in the world, and the Happy Planet index, which is an index reflecting well-being of people and the state of the environment in different countries, back in 2008, placed us at 125th spot, after which we stopped participating in it.
What does this tell us? This tells us that there is a deep discrepancy between the nation’s capabilities to achieve certain results in specific areas and its inability to achieve good results overall. Even though institutes were created, but institutional environment of modernization, doesn’t work, governmental and social institutes often act in different directions. Government puts social activists in jail and the civic society fights for their liberation. This is reminiscent of the famous Krylov fable “A swan, a lobster and a pike”, where all of the energy goes to waste, not letting anyone to move in any direction.
This also means that human capital, even though it is still on the high level, nonetheless has no forms of adequate realization either in economic, political or social realm.
Ministry of education and science still cannot match real abilities of the human capital of scientists, teachers and researchers with existing conditions, demands and abilities of the government and institutions in this sphere of life. There is a separate, almost unconstitutional law for Nazarbaev’s university and a law for all other ones, there is financing for Nazarbaev’s schools and financing for all other ones.
Aside from that, the ministry constantly burdens this sphere with useless political goals (explanation of speeches, inclusion of questionable issues into national testing, control over fundamental research over compliance with current goals and tasks of the security council and presidential administration, etc.) thus further destroying the remaining wholeness of educational norms and programs. Thus, science and education are spheres with heavy government involvement in Kazakhstan, which doesn’t correspond to democratic and legal standards declared by constitution of the country.
A trail of asocial and pseudo-cultural pollution in the form of archaic traditions (dowries, tribalism) and new behavioral trends, stemming from such paternalism of power over society, becomes insurmountable barrier for the holistic and free development of human personality. Thus, human capital in the form of knowledge, skills and moral actions becomes weak.
In other words, what prevails is not a constitutional approach, which gives equal opportunities to everyone, but a selective one, elitist one. In the absence of real political choice, elites create better living conditions for themselves while the society as a whole continues its inert wat of political participation, choosing the more habitual or less confrontational of the worst choices.
Elective approach in this case prevails over holistic, systemic approach to modernization of the society and Kazakh nation and serves badly in the end. It distances the elites form people. The connection between civic society and the regime becomes a formal one, due to rooted traditions of paternalism of power over social spheres and all institutes of civic society, which doesn’t let holistic modernization of the country happen and doesn’t facilitate the development of either human or social capital. Thus, with all of the so-called modernity of the regime in solving of current issues on the fly there is a problem. With Kazakhstan’s manual management of society, common civilizational indicators of modernisation overall lag behind European or even post-Soviet ones. With falling human capital, they will continue to lag.
If you take EU countries for example, we see a neo-functional combining of holistic and specific approaches, when at the core of national politics economic, political and social processes go hand in hand.
Because, for instance even though that social programs during crisis in EU are optimized, the civic society of member countries of EU nonetheless not only doesn’t get involved into a more heated confrontation with the government, but does quite the opposite, since the democratic process constantly leads to correspondence of politics of the regime and new political subjects with the public opinion of the population, which forms these same policies. Thus, there is a continuing strengthening of national social capital in countries of Europe.
Democratic institutes and civilizational part become so important for economic development (as the political crisis in Greece showed), that people are ready to change and cancel the nature of certain economic models in accordance with conditions of continuing functioning of economy of the country within EU. Thus, here it is a connection between social wholeness and specifics of economic development, democratic model and the model of economic development. This connection is direct and specific and is the most important and main institutional policy of any EU government. This in fact is the main distinguishing feature of a democratic model from others.
In European social sphere, education, healthcare and social welfare the level of trust is extremely high, since if the parliament approved the budget of the country, schools themselves initiate new rules, no one can manage them, and the changing of management is done based on rotational principle. No one can make them dictate the discussion of political issues to students. And in USA, colleges and all educational sphere in general, is basically the most active critic of any administration.
Look at how schools work in Finland, Austria or even Bulgaria or Romania. You will see that teachers have a right not only to openly protest, but even to replace higher ups. And forget any of the government officials trying to oppose said teachers’ strikes. They will at least lose their position. This is not Russia, where in educational and cultural institutions, there is a voicing of the “enemies of people”, who due to their civil stance on annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbass are subjected to no-so-subtle purges.
This is also reflected in the matters of migration policy and integration. Thus, in Germany, which has taken in the highest number of migrants from North African and Middle eastern countries, there isn’t any significant public withdrawal form policies of Angela Merkel. Why? Because constantly happening political debates and battles lead to a certain consensus in society and it is customary to follow it. In France, despite an increasing influence of Marine Le Pen’s nationalist program, on the eve of presidential elections, based on results of first debates, people gave preference to an independent candidate Emmanuel Macron, who harshly debated Le pen.
In Kazakhstan though, as in other member countries of EAEU, after the attainment of independence such a connection between democracy and social development and between democracy and economic model turned out uncertain, abstract and secondary. A more mixed “peoples-democratic” ideological political platform was formed here, which in essence materialized into modification rather than modernisation, a structure of managing public economy and formed an eclectic model of economic and social development.
Its main elements (despite constitution having a democratic ruling system) became the domineering role of the government in the economy and social sphere, economic and social authoritarianism (pseudo-market, irrational, lacking innovation model of management), pseudo-social vector of the model (with a considerable share of equalizing and ineffective social programs, modified soviet pension system and other slightly modified systems) as well as a hidden form of acquiring and owning of equity and thus a discrepancy on the level of income of owners and working employees.
As a result we got negative social effects – corruption, raiders, political engagement of economic and social projects and lack of receptivity of technological innovations by economic, social and political subjects, social and public institutes etc.
Degradation in the absence of working democratic institutes and system of checks and balances affects society from the top and permeates to the bottom, down to an ordinary everyman, who stops to try to work honestly and looks for sideways for individual enrichment. In his activities a man starts to utilize both legal and illegal methods trying to win additional income. A split of a person happens: just like a political regime allowing privileges to certain people, he become a hybrid person – and this is how good qualities of an individual weaken and bad ones become stronger.
Thus, even though human capital remains on a high level in Kazakhstan, it continues to slowly devaluate, which in the closed political space doesn’t allow to form into kinds of social capital, which would widen and deepened ways of co-operation, solidarity and oneness of the nation.
Overall such political regimes in the post-Soviet space, which try to combine both liberal and conservative practices (as Russian political expert Ekaternia Shulman notes) are hybrid, since they do not follow any one particular ideological platform, in order to simply survive. In essence, however, they are authoritarian.
However, mutual relationship and resemblance of “pure” autocracies (dictatorships) and hybrid regimes is not absolute. This can be seen in the fact that in post-Soviet countries, including EAEU member countries, functional power of government structures even though weaker than in democracies, is still much larger than in “pure” autocracies or dictatorships and failed states, due to flexibility or legal nihilism of its formally democratic practices (procedural democracy). There is only a visibility of democracy, which is essentially a struggle of clans and financial-industrial groups for influence, which by its nature is going to stand for a “enforcement” style of power and thus to make disengagemet in social aspects and economy even stronger.
Thus, until real democratization starts our government of hybrid type will lag in development behind more democratic countries and thus, civic society will be look for more reasons of showing disapproval.
They will become the forms of consolidation of group interests which will allow civic society to look for more appropriate political platforms and discourses.
Civic society institutes can only affect the current government policy by showing their moral position on a given subject, while government bodies will continue the practice of purely legal regulation within the framework of existing political regime. Confrontation between morale and law in such government becomes a pressing problem.
In this case, under condition of ongoing crisis, government shouldn’t toughen the means of criminal persecution but rather start the development of a new social, civic and law codes of the KR, in order to attract civic society to mutual search of an exit from this difficult situation, instead of increasing an already large division between itself an newly forming civic society; otherwise civic society will start looking for more active and not often adequate forms of pressuring the regime in order to be heard.
Actually, human capital has already started to congregate around various subjects, important for a nation (land, history, language, etc.) however, still not being solid in economic and social spheres, they will remain on the periphery of political field for a while. Civil activists and volunteers already started to vote not only with their hands but also with their legs. Hunger strikes of labor unions, big groups and “sit ins” of activists don’t have a direct effect anymore. And as the effectiveness of economic policy of the government continues falling, business (small and mid-size) having reached the state of almost-bankruptcy, will start pouring its social energy into a common field of political activity.
Thus, conditions for forming of national social capital will be formed, which in the mainstream of rising political pressure from civic society (groups, political parties) could start realizing itself in the processes of political modernisation of our government in not always constitutional ways. Thus, in the process of turning a hybrid into a real democracy, it is necessary to show political will, aimed at serious activation of cooperation with the public.
As the practice of developed countries shows, it is necessary to not only write smart parliamentary laws, but to actually execute them, effectively protecting constitutional rights and liberties of people in the courts, first of all. They should not only not interfere into social spheres, with badly thought out initiatives, as it is done here (an initiative to implement required three language education, for example) but to give it a new and effective form of a real democratic implementation of human and other capitals.
Patriotism and unmotivated love for Otan-fatherland among government officials as well as various patriotic individuals and social activists, must take a form transitional to national state, with various and varying communities by interests, whose main principle will be deep-rooted Unitarianism of outlook of the nation (such as Germanism and Americanism).
And of course, for national social capital to form holistically, civic society needs to “grow up” in a introspective sense, initiate and realize true reformation of religious feeling and relations and facilitate introduction of political-judicial structure and to seriously develop philosophical basis of national identification. Thus people of Kazakhstan, in order not to end up at the abyss of civilization and not to lag behind in the era of exponential growth of technology and changing quality of life, need to truly start standing up for their private rights and freedoms and to initiate deep changes or even write a new constitution for the country aimed at a republican form of governmet. As for current political parties, tey need to fight for consolidation and protection of the main law typical for true democratic states system of checks and balances, and also they need to fight for creation of constitutional court, and not to just agree with yet another round of amendments aimed at modifying responsibilities between branches of government and above-the-law extraordinary powers of the leader.
