Search

Rather than interpreting President Nursultan Nazarbayev's nation-building model of Kazakhstani-ness as a balance between civic and ethnic forms of nation-building, we show that Kazakhstani-ness was styled on Leonid Brezhnev's supranational modern identity of the Soviet People. We explore three similarities by comparing rulers' discursive aspirational statements (rather than historical policy trajectories) in a single case study of Kazakhstan. Both discursive models were based on teleological supranational state ideology, both were depicted as modern and advanced, and both modelled the new identity on the language and culture of ethnic majority. We used thematic discourse analysis in over 50 government documents and speeches of leaders to illustrate our argument. This case presents bigger lessons for regime's power of defining the national membership in post-Soviet Kazakhstan and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Kazakhstan has followed a foreign policy of multivector diplomacy since its independence from the former Soviet Union. While multivectorism was a strategy of necessity in its early years, it has evolved to empower Kazakhstan to effectively protect its independence and negotiate its relationship with the great powers on its borders and further afield. After the 2014 Russian seizure of Crimea it is noteworthy that Kazakhstan has maintained positive relations with Russia while asserting its sovereignty and independent foreign policy. In this article we investigate how Kazakhstan has negotiated the rise of China, taking advantage of the economic opportunities it presents. We trace the foreign policy of Kazakhstan from independence forward, examining its relationships with its Great Power neighbours and its role in international organizations and negotiations. We posit that multivectorism is similar to the strategy of omni-enmeshment and complex balancing seen in south-east Asia. Both are effective methods for secondary powers to protect their sovereignty and to coexist with Great Powers without becoming their client states. Kazakhstan's approach to foreign policy is an exemplar for secondary states. This article contributes to the literature on the strategic decision-making of secondary powers and to the theoretical analysis of the foreign policy of Kazakhstan during a critical moment of transition from the long-time rule of Nursultan Nazarbayev to the presidency of Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses challenges facing Kazakhstan's transitioning society after its independence from the collapsed Soviet Union. Topics discussed include the emergence of big metropolitan areas as a result of large population movements, the country's post-Soviet urbanization which decoupled from industrialization, and the rise of Islamization. Also discussed are the continuing influence of former president Nursultan Nazarbayev and the resistance to globalization and foreign investment.

Building on recent scholarship, this essay contributes to further developing a conceptual understanding of multivector foreign policy, a term that, despite its frequent use, is still in need of additional refinement. I use the two-pronged concept of diversification as hinging, first, on simultaneous co-alignment with multiple major power providers and, second, as resulting from the interaction of variables at both system and unit levels. The essay then models a causal mechanism to explain Kazakhstan's approach to international infrastructure connectivity, an oft neglected issue-area of interstate collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the concept of political postcolonialism and how political groups appropriate and contest this discourse. Elites and contesting political groups utilise postcolonial rhetoric to legitimate their political goals by projecting that their country, in this case Kazakhstan, was colonised by the Tsarist Russia and then by the Soviet Union. For President Nursultan A. Nazarbayev's nationalising regime the status of Kazakhstan as a colony represented a vital item in post-1991 nation-building projects. Political opposition and Kazakh national- patriots contested this official discourse, blaming the regime for scarce efforts towards 'full decolonisation'. The absence of major intellectual discussion allowed these elites and political players to reappropriate these discourses in the political rather than critical intellectual domain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper evaluates Kazakhstan's natural resource policies and their impact on the standard of living of the Kazakhstan population within the framework of three determinative factors: globalization and international markets; Soviet legacy and ‘resource nationalism’; and Nursultan Nazarbayev and his authoritarian leadership. It argues that natural resource policies of Kazakhstan failed to improve the living standards of the majority of people in Kazakhstan, especially the poor and those living in oil-producing and rural areas, despite increasing oil prices and revenues. The argument will be supported with an analysis of Kazakhstan's oil wealth distribution in light of global initiatives as well as with evidence derived from official reports and statistical data to find out whether Nazarbayev's widely discussed ‘resource nationalism’ is ‘nationalistic’ enough to favour the whole nation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the reform of Kazakhstan's cultural policies under President Nursultan Nazarbayev, commenting on his implementation of the Concept of Cultural Policy, a program designed to strengthen the country's culture by streamlining policies on cultural education and the arts.

The article focuses on the foreign policy of Kazakhstan as defined by geopolitics. It examines 18 presidential addresses by Kazakhstan's president Nursultan Nazarbayev. Topics discussed include emphasis placed by Nazarbayev on specific countries and regions, Kazakhstan's geopolitical position and foreign policy, its role in the international system and the need for Kazakhstan to be integrated into the global economy.

Using the perspective of political opportunity structure, this qualitative survey of primary sources attempts to determine whether environmental NGOs (ENGOs) in Kazakhstan are achieving institutionalisation from the standpoint of representative democracy, or are being co-opted by a corporatist national government. Are ENGOs the harbingers of the democratisation of the country that many observers hope to see? Given increases in the nation’s budgets for the environment and easing of NGO/ENGO legislation, the institutionalising project would seem to have some prospects for success. Concomitantly, the participation of civic groups in the policy arena has contributed to better governance through experiments in new forms of state-society partnership. However, these partnerships have under-performed. Local governments face conflicting demands, while the insufficient administrative and technical capacity of state agencies highlights the need for capacity building. On the political level, authentic ENGOs must compete for policy inclusion with co-opted “front” organisations selectively favoured by the national government, at the same time that the government’s ambiguity towards ENGOs retards the latter’s institutionalisation. The immediate future of environmental civic society is uncertain. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The pragmatic interests of Kazakhstan and the European Union have profoundly influenced the relationship between them, preventing the establishment of successful cooperation in the human dimension. This article investigates these dynamics in detail, placing its spotlight on the role assigned to the relationship with the European Union in the most recent technologies of power devised by the Kazakhstani regime. Particular attention here will be devoted to the tension between the regime's search for international legitimacy and its efforts to insulate itself from EU pressures for political liberalisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a world still dominated by a geopolitical system of territorial states, one tool in the state- and nation-building repertoire is the strategy of moving a capital from one city to another, and to an ostensibly more 'central' location of a geometrically conceived territory. From Ankara to Brasília, the technique has been used in a variety of places around the world, and Kazakhstan's new capital since 1997, Astana, is one more recent iteration. Taking a Foucauldian approach to analysing political technologies of government, the author examines the strategy of the centrally located city and considers how it has been instrumental to simultaneously producing a 'state effect' and a 'territory effect' in newly independent Kazakhstan. Part of a larger mixed-methods study, this article draws on a diverse range of methods, including data from interviews, participant observation, textual analysis, focus groups and a country-wide survey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A new political development that emerged after the disintegration of the Soviet Union was the adoption of ‘homeland stances’ by the newly independent states. Through the construction of the homeland image, the states of the region claimed responsibility not only for their own citizens, but also for a diaspora community of co-ethnics. Kazakhstan became one of these states and its leadership portrayed Kazakhstan as the homeland of the Kazakh diaspora. Furthermore, Kazakhstan's leadership developed far more active homeland rhetoric and initiated an ethnic return-migration policy as early as 1992. This paper will explore the discourse of Kazakhstan's leadership on the repatriation of its co-ethnics as well as the legal and political context that it created to achieve their smooth absorption into domestic society. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article offers information on the political instability in Kazakhstan. It states that the major factor for the political stability of Kazakhstan is the personal authority of Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev. It says that Kazakhstan never had a leader who can capitalize on the discontent of Kazakhs and transforms discontent into political actions and expectations.

Copyright of Journal of Central Asian & Caucasian Studies is the property of International Strategic Research Organization and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses the state of science and technology research and funding in the country of Kazakhstan. While the country was ranked as the world's 56th most economically competitive nation in 2006, President Nursultan Nazarbayev vowed to move into the ranks of the top 50 within ten years. In 2008, however, Kazakhstan had slipped to number 66. Similar trends are evident in Nazarbayev's proclamations to usher in a five- to ten-fold increase in purchasing power. The reasons behind these failures are examined, including a rift between the nation's president and its governmental bureaucracy, and the need for human resources to bolster science and economy.