by Talgat Kabdygali
Post-Soviet countries continue to grapple with their ideological identity, often finding themselves at a crossroads. Friedrich Engels noted that the state emerged to manage conflicts resulting from economic inequality, suggesting that a society without internal conflicts might require a concrete state ideology rather than mere political maneuvering. This ambiguity reflects broader questions about national identity and governance in the post-Soviet era.
The fall of the Soviet Union led to a period of deideologization, with state ideologies being viewed as relics of an anti-democratic past. However, this deideologization was more of a façade, masking underlying ideological currents that continue to influence governance. Kazakhstan’s constitution declares the absence of a state ideology, promoting pluralism. Yet, in practice, the government has pushed “national values,” signaling an attempt to craft an ideological narrative. For instance, the recent emphasis on promoting Kazakh culture and language highlights a subtle ideological shift. This push can be seen in state-sponsored programs and cultural policies aimed at reinforcing a national identity distinct from its Soviet past while aligning with the ruling elite’s vision.
This ideological shift serves a dual purpose. On one hand, it aims to foster national unity and pride, essential for state-building in a diverse society. On the other hand, it provides a tool for the ruling elite to consolidate power by defining acceptable cultural and ideological norms. This dual approach helps maintain a veneer of pluralism while subtly steering public discourse in a controlled direction.
The silent ideology prevalent in modern Kazakhstan revolves around the creation and consolidation of private capital. Privatization, a hallmark of post-Soviet economic reforms, was intended to boost economic efficiency but led to significant social stratification. Privatization created a new elite class, deeply entwined with political power. In Kazakhstan, the privatization process has entrenched a powerful elite. For instance, Timur Kulibayev, a prominent businessman and son-in-law of former President Nursultan Nazarbayev, epitomizes this elite class. His business empire spans key sectors like energy and banking, showcasing the overlap between economic power and political influence. The privatization process enabled the transfer of state assets to private hands, often benefiting those with political connections.
Read more: https://www.thewashingtonoutsider.com/navigating-ideological-crossroads/