Donnacha O Beachain & Rob Kevlihan Threading a needle: Kazakhstan between civic and ethno-nationalist state-building
This paper examines the state‐building project in Kazakhstan since independence in 1991. It argues that both civic and ethno‐nationalistic tendencies in state‐building can be identified but that it is not any particular trajectory of nationalism in Kazakhstan that is of significance so much as the tensions between two very different trajectories. We argue that, at least to date, the government has succeeded in managing these tensions quite effectively both at the policy level and in its relations with different ethnic groups and neighbouring states. Whether Kazakhstan can continue to manage these tensions in the post‐Nazarbayev era is one of the most significant questions facing the country.
Defining civic and ethnic nationalism
At the heart of every nationalism lies a profound dualism – a tension between civic and ethnic elements. Understood as ideal types, a civic model of a nation state comprises a historic territory, legal-political community, equality of members and a common civic culture and ideology. The central concept is the equality of a sovereign citizen-people with the state, regardless of language spoken, distinct cultural practices, racial characteristics or other potential cleavages. An ethnic state model emphasizes a community of birth and native culture, associated with a form of biological / genealogical determinism. A nation, under this conception, is a community of common descent – a community which existed prior to nationalist mobilization and distinguished itself in some way from foreigners .
These concepts, often presented in dichotomous form, present an apparently either/or proposition. The reality is often more complicated. Drawing from Benedict Anderson’s (2002) work to apply a constructivist sensibility changes this dualist perspective. Civic nations, far from being essentially civic in nature, imagine themselves to be civically oriented. The reality may often fall short of such imaginings. Equally, states based on the idea of shared ethnicity imagine a community of common descent. Crucially, civic and ethnic-state imaginings are not necessarily mutually exclusive over time, as long as states and societies are sufficiently open to re-imaginings, including selective and collective remembrance and amnesia. Short of global cosmopolitanism, however, both civic and ethnic imaginings are defined in part by their boundaries with some ‘other’.
Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/nana.12022
Image source: https://www.intellinews.com/kazakhstan-s-banking-sector-under-pressure-bracing-for-more-manda-or-defaults-160929
This paper examines the state‐building project in Kazakhstan since independence in 1991. It argues that both civic and ethno‐nationalistic tendencies in state‐building can be identified but that it is not any particular trajectory of nationalism in Kazakhstan that is of significance so much as the tensions between two very different trajectories. We argue that, at least to date, the government has succeeded in managing these tensions quite effectively both at the policy level and in its relations with different ethnic groups and neighbouring states. Whether Kazakhstan can continue to manage these tensions in the post‐Nazarbayev era is one of the most significant questions facing the country.
Defining civic and ethnic nationalism
At the heart of every nationalism lies a profound dualism – a tension between civic and ethnic elements. Understood as ideal types, a civic model of a nation state comprises a historic territory, legal-political community, equality of members and a common civic culture and ideology. The central concept is the equality of a sovereign citizen-people with the state, regardless of language spoken, distinct cultural practices, racial characteristics or other potential cleavages. An ethnic state model emphasizes a community of birth and native culture, associated with a form of biological / genealogical determinism. A nation, under this conception, is a community of common descent – a community which existed prior to nationalist mobilization and distinguished itself in some way from foreigners .
These concepts, often presented in dichotomous form, present an apparently either/or proposition. The reality is often more complicated. Drawing from Benedict Anderson’s (2002) work to apply a constructivist sensibility changes this dualist perspective. Civic nations, far from being essentially civic in nature, imagine themselves to be civically oriented. The reality may often fall short of such imaginings. Equally, states based on the idea of shared ethnicity imagine a community of common descent. Crucially, civic and ethnic-state imaginings are not necessarily mutually exclusive over time, as long as states and societies are sufficiently open to re-imaginings, including selective and collective remembrance and amnesia. Short of global cosmopolitanism, however, both civic and ethnic imaginings are defined in part by their boundaries with some ‘other’.
Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/nana.12022
Image source: https://www.intellinews.com/kazakhstan-s-banking-sector-under-pressure-bracing-for-more-manda-or-defaults-160929
This paper examines the state‐building project in Kazakhstan since independence in 1991. It argues that both civic and ethno‐nationalistic tendencies in state‐building can be identified but that it is not any particular trajectory of nationalism in Kazakhstan that is of significance so much as the tensions between two very different trajectories. We argue that, at least to date, the government has succeeded in managing these tensions quite effectively both at the policy level and in its relations with different ethnic groups and neighbouring states. Whether Kazakhstan can continue to manage these tensions in the post‐Nazarbayev era is one of the most significant questions facing the country.
Defining civic and ethnic nationalism
At the heart of every nationalism lies a profound dualism – a tension between civic and ethnic elements. Understood as ideal types, a civic model of a nation state comprises a historic territory, legal-political community, equality of members and a common civic culture and ideology. The central concept is the equality of a sovereign citizen-people with the state, regardless of language spoken, distinct cultural practices, racial characteristics or other potential cleavages. An ethnic state model emphasizes a community of birth and native culture, associated with a form of biological / genealogical determinism. A nation, under this conception, is a community of common descent – a community which existed prior to nationalist mobilization and distinguished itself in some way from foreigners .
These concepts, often presented in dichotomous form, present an apparently either/or proposition. The reality is often more complicated. Drawing from Benedict Anderson’s (2002) work to apply a constructivist sensibility changes this dualist perspective. Civic nations, far from being essentially civic in nature, imagine themselves to be civically oriented. The reality may often fall short of such imaginings. Equally, states based on the idea of shared ethnicity imagine a community of common descent. Crucially, civic and ethnic-state imaginings are not necessarily mutually exclusive over time, as long as states and societies are sufficiently open to re-imaginings, including selective and collective remembrance and amnesia. Short of global cosmopolitanism, however, both civic and ethnic imaginings are defined in part by their boundaries with some ‘other’.
Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/nana.12022
Image source: https://www.intellinews.com/kazakhstan-s-banking-sector-under-pressure-bracing-for-more-manda-or-defaults-160929
This paper examines the state‐building project in Kazakhstan since independence in 1991. It argues that both civic and ethno‐nationalistic tendencies in state‐building can be identified but that it is not any particular trajectory of nationalism in Kazakhstan that is of significance so much as the tensions between two very different trajectories. We argue that, at least to date, the government has succeeded in managing these tensions quite effectively both at the policy level and in its relations with different ethnic groups and neighbouring states. Whether Kazakhstan can continue to manage these tensions in the post‐Nazarbayev era is one of the most significant questions facing the country.
Defining civic and ethnic nationalism
At the heart of every nationalism lies a profound dualism – a tension between civic and ethnic elements. Understood as ideal types, a civic model of a nation state comprises a historic territory, legal-political community, equality of members and a common civic culture and ideology. The central concept is the equality of a sovereign citizen-people with the state, regardless of language spoken, distinct cultural practices, racial characteristics or other potential cleavages. An ethnic state model emphasizes a community of birth and native culture, associated with a form of biological / genealogical determinism. A nation, under this conception, is a community of common descent – a community which existed prior to nationalist mobilization and distinguished itself in some way from foreigners .
These concepts, often presented in dichotomous form, present an apparently either/or proposition. The reality is often more complicated. Drawing from Benedict Anderson’s (2002) work to apply a constructivist sensibility changes this dualist perspective. Civic nations, far from being essentially civic in nature, imagine themselves to be civically oriented. The reality may often fall short of such imaginings. Equally, states based on the idea of shared ethnicity imagine a community of common descent. Crucially, civic and ethnic-state imaginings are not necessarily mutually exclusive over time, as long as states and societies are sufficiently open to re-imaginings, including selective and collective remembrance and amnesia. Short of global cosmopolitanism, however, both civic and ethnic imaginings are defined in part by their boundaries with some ‘other’.
Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/nana.12022
Image source: https://www.intellinews.com/kazakhstan-s-banking-sector-under-pressure-bracing-for-more-manda-or-defaults-160929