Following the US presidential elections, experts are wondering in what direction the multifaceted international policy of Kazakhstan will change. Some say it will remain the same while others believe that these potential changes depend directly on how the US relationship with Kazakhstan’s two neighbors – Russia and China – are going to develop.

In the second part of the interview*, Dastan Kadyrzhanov, a Kazakh political science expert, speaks about the potential geopolitical threats and the Kazakh citizens’ involvement in the state policy.

 — Dastan, do you think the Kazakh international policy is going to change in the aftermath of Trump’s ascension to power or will it remain multifaceted?

— For us, balancing the interests is unavoidable. This balance was once created for a reason. Our international policy was oriented not only towards the economy pragmatism but also towards the safety pragmatism. I am talking not only about China and Russia but also about the US and the EU. Besides, Kazakhstan itself is a part of the Central Asian, Turkic and Islam worlds. This is what the multi-faceted nature of our policy means.

Today, however, we have to assume a position on an observer. Our actions mean almost nothing while the development of the US – Russia and the US – China relationships will have a significant impact on a lot of things. We can only, as they say, follow the reactive policy while everything is still in turbulence. We can observe, study and keep in mind that, if we do not want to lose what is ours, we must follow a simple rule of protecting the interests of our country and its citizens. This is our guiding principle that will not let us take erroneous steps in this changing world.

— The word on the street is that the ISIS militia is becoming more active in Afghanistan. Is there a chance of them coming to Central Asia?

— The thing is that the Afghan threat is often exaggerated. The national liberation war has been going on in that country for years. This war itself, however, does not carry a threat of an international expansion as oppose to the things you mention – al-Qaeda, etc.

I think the main condition for keeping the safety is to stabilize Afghanistan and stop the armed conflicts. We can help with this. Afghanistan was a part of Central Asia in the old geopolitical sense. The Soviets once divided the area in an artificial fashion but, actually, Northern Afghanistan had always been an intrinsic part of the Central Asian pot. Therefore, one way or another, we will have to participate in their affairs.

There are some decent programs that we can offer. While working at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and fulfilling the assignment of the Minister Marat Tazhin, I developed a humanitarian program for Afghanistan and started the project of inviting Afghans to study at Kazakh colleges. Thanks to this project, thousands of people learned new skills. I do not know whether this program is still active or not, however, for the Afghans, a possibility to study in Kazakhstan is a big step towards secular society. We can influence their humanitarian development, secular education in a big way which is a crucial part of fighting the radical religious fundamentalists.

— Speaking of the external risks, we cannot avoid the question of the Russian – Kazakh relations. How are they progressing, in your opinion?

— The political relations with Russia are progressing the ways they are progressing because of the similarity of our political regimes. In their essence, they are close to each other and are different from the Belorussian system. Unlike the latter, they are not comprador, the savings of both elites (the Russian as well as the Kazakh) are kept abroad. Therefore, the connection between the Kazakh and the Russian regimes is a negative one, these regimes influence each other in a bad way.

I can see how we had implanted some totalitarian traits into the Russian policy. President Putin is younger than President Nazarbayev and there was a time when Nazarbayev could offer some suggestions to Putin. Now, in their turn, the Russians have an adverse effect on us. Then, consider the integration that, for us, is based on the absolutely non-practical platform. Today no one has any doubts that the country has lost a lot as a part of the Eurasian Economic Community custom union and the Eurasian Union. If the decision to join the union was made from the economy point of view, I do not see any practicality in it.

Kazakhstan and Russia have a long border together. We cannot avoid this fact. Therefore, geopolitically speaking, we must form normal relations we Russia as well as with China. By the way, with these countries, the term “border” means something more than just a line on the map. Many Kazakhs live in Russia and in China. Many Russians, in their turn, live in Kazakhstan. Now the Chinses are coming to Kazakhstan, too. If we consider the long-term process, to have bad relations with these neighbors is simply non-practical.

I believe that today, however, this partnership has more negative than positive traits. The political regimes enrich one another, they help each other with many affairs including fighting their political opponents. Russia helps the Kazakh regime to fight the opposition and vice versa.  These two regimes support each other. Although there is hope that they will change in the future, perhaps they will become of a more democratic nature. Then this partnership will be constructive, pragmatic, mutually beneficial, and respectful. However, it is still a long way to go.

— Which one is more irritating for a regular Kazakh citizen not interested in politics – China or Russia?

— The Kazakhs once formed an antagonism towards the Chinese which is reflected in some sayings and traditions. This antagonism was stirred up not a long time ago when a serious conflict developed during the Soviet times – China crossed our border near the Dzungarian Gate. Therefore, the Kazakhs possess no illusions as to what their South-East neighbor is like.

As for Russia, quite a different factor is at play here. For a long time, we had existed as parts of the same state, then we received independence and thought it to be our basic, fundamental value. However, suddenly, this value started to grow away because of some different principles formulated un Moscow.

By the way, to say that our regular citizen is not a part of our political life is a mistake. Today people are highly charged politically. This is not only due to the events in Kazakhstan we have discussed here. That same Russian propaganda, the Russian media had politicized people’s way of thinking. Of course, they wanted to bring the Kazakhs on their side. In reality, however, the propaganda caused an adverse reaction because of the strong information slam of other countries. So, you are not going to find politically indifferent people in Kazakhstan today. This hypothetical “average” citizen concerned only with his daily bread does not exist.

The problem of finding this daily bread, innovations in the police work, tax laws, etc. are the additional irritating factors that show to the regular Kazakhs – they are just nobodies as citizens. However, our still enough educated population possesses a political outlook to the full extent. The Kazakhs have formed their attitude towards Russia, China, all the internal political trends. I say this as someone who has had a chance to talk to people both in the provinces and in the villages. They ask political questions first and only then they start talking about their local and personal problems.

— What do people usually ask about?

— When a city person comes to a small town or a village, everyone asks, “What is going on? It is not right!”. So, they take it out on this person. People from villages and provinces are now included in the info sphere. It is in the olden times that messengers brought the news once a month on horses. Today we have the Internet, smart technologies, TV, so people can receive information and observe what is happening.  Moreover, everyone is aware that the official media and propaganda present only ten to twenty percent of the objective information, the rest is received from the other sources. Therefore, people usually ask a maximum number of political questions, like why was such and such minister appointed, why is this one in prison, and what is happening in general.

Regular drivers, farm workers can hold a normal discussion because the modern society is very dynamic, the people go to the city, they have relatives living in the capital and even working in politics. There is also the small-town intelligentsia able to speak competently on political matters. All of them together constitute the unified info sphere that is nothing like what they had in the Medieval times.

As for me, I prefer to play the part of an observer because, as soon as you start to speak, you are enforcing your views on others and I am more interested to know what people really think. Once they used to hang on the words of a city person, today they, first, take it out on you and only then they ask what you think about it. Everyone has an active political position, no one expects anyone to explain political issues to them, no one hangs upon the lips of the formal leaders. People try to formulate their position themselves, try to form their own opinions. This kind of attitude is quite common and widespread.

— What, in your opinion, is the cause of this – the widespread economic crisis or…?

— The cause is the political management crisis in the country. Our state governance system is hopelessly outdated. It was formed for the original accumulation of capital and, later, it was supposed to undergo several stages of liberalization. This, however, had never been done. Thus, it came to the point when the system had become so bureaucratized that the supreme political power lost all the instruments to manage even the mid-level bureaucratic apparatus.

So, no one can even give an objective answer to the question “Why were the policemen’s batons for traffic control taken away”? This news was presented in the media as a national level event. However, is there any pragmatism, symbolism, or modernism to this initiative? No one can explain.

There are too many examples like this today. Consider the new residence registration rules. The same goals could have been achieved quite differently. The public service centers are empty today. Still, they made raids, they scared everyone. And now the other departments are employing the same kind of “raid technology”. For example, representatives of the utility service providers are now coming to people’s homes and check up on something while threatening to cut it off even though they may not even have maintenance service contracts with the residents.

This kind of pattern is a product of the crisis in the state management and the obsolescence of the political system. So, when we hear them talk about a modernization – first, second, third, fourth – we understand that it is nothing but a battle cry that will pass without leaving a mark.

The real modernization means taking concrete steps. A consultant in a public service center told me, “Do not worry, you are a modern person, we are launching a special resource so you will be able to register online”. Fine. It turns out, however, that, to do so, I need a digital signature that is given to you for one year. Thus, I must go and renew it. But there is still a huge line at the place where I can renew the signature. And that’s that. It is the end of the modernization, plain and barbarous.

The government agency had spent money on the launch of this digital resource. At the same time, they suddenly decided to create lines for receiving this digital signature. What is more, the signature must be renewed every year.

I have said before that creating the public service centers has been a successful project for our authorities. I can hardly recall any other ones aimed to make people’s lives easier. A factor that is at play here is that these centers are no longer organized on a commercial basis. It used to be that one consultant could serve a thousand people. Now, even only one person comes to the center, many officials must wait and serve him. And the lines started to disappear, the decisions started to be made faster. The corruption is still there, of course, but not the way it has been.

And so, on this successfully functioning base, the authorities have triggered a wave of political meeting in the residential registration lines. What is it if not the government crisis?

— Do you think the matters will get worse?

— On the one hand, the development of the current events shows that we are moving towards a social collapse. On the other hand, we can see that the authorities come to an understanding that things must be changed. They propose a Constitutional reform, for example. However, it will all depend on whether the government realizes the necessity of real changes. If yes, we will escape many unpleasant events. Today, the crisis is so evident that it is clear – we simply cannot preserve the current political system and the economy that is a product of this system.  They will be changed one way or another. This way may be smooth, or harsh, or external, or internal. But they will be changed.

What I mean here is that the future reforms will be of a revolutionary nature since the basic political, social, and economic relations between the government and the society are going to change. The most important point here is that they should not change for the worse. Anything is possible as history teaches us.

— Thank you for the interview.

* See the first part of the interview here

«Выход президента из «Нур Отана» мог бы дать старт реформам»