Bakhytzhamal Bekturganova, President of the Association of Sociologists and Politologists
ALMATY, May 19
(Specialli for THE GLOBE)
Introduction
History looks at us in the same way as we look at it. If we see ourselves differently from what we are, the reason for it we should be found in ourselves.
Our society suffers from an inborn social colour-blindness. That is why we do not see in today�s forms of oppression the modification of the earlier forms - connected with the first changes of private property in the primitive tribal system.
That is why we are still so naive expecting democratic changes, forgeting that we see them through a deep hole dividing our society into the new �ak-suyek� and �kara-suyek�.
The continuously centralising tribal system created the historical precedent of the �estranging process� of the New Independent Kazakhstan. Now we follow the route which returns us to �feudalism of profitable posts�, where the governing is executed by means of collection of duties and taxes. This governing does not differ its own pocket from the State coffers, and reforms are realised by the exploitation of poor people. It is obvious that traditions of the time of batyrs1 and barymta2 may survive on this miserable economic basis.
Is it possible to blame history, which cursed us with perfidy? Taking into consideration our genotype, our society should hardly count on a phenotype more appropriate for today. A thoughtful reader will find numerous parallels in this article, which prove the edge between the past and today is getting vague.
The Kazakh society that took shape in the second half of the 15th century was double-structured from the very beginning. This was caused by the peculiarities of the establishment of the territorial State and the domination of a policy that promoted the class-hierarchical principle of social division into �ak-suyek� (�white bone�) and �kara-suyek� (�black bone�).
The society was divided into two unequal parts. The main area was occupied by that part of the society that was called �kara-suyek�. The �ak-suyek� was formed by a very thin, impenetrable high stratum of the society. The relations between the two strata were of a �governing -submission� character, which was not antagonistic. That was the relations between the leaders (superior rulers) and the subjects of the State, enlightened by the patrimonial (hereditary) right of the first ones to appropriate a territory along with its subjects, according to Chingiz-khan�s Yasa .
The higher strata �ak-suyek� had a closed (caste) character. It was a dynasty unit of authorities having a monopoly for legalised physical oppression by fact and their birth. Only members of the Chingizid family (men�s line) were entitled to the rights and privileges of the high (state) authority.
This dynastic union of �ruled� descendants of Chingiz-khan was characterised by a weakened tradition of direct heritage. All the Chingizid family had the dynastic right to inherit the State territory, to unite it by marriages, present it and divide it if the heritage was to be divided. The members of the family could establish new dynasty clans (e.g. the clans of Dzhuchids, Tukatimurids, Sheibanids, etc.) based upon the family clans, inside the Chingizid family. One of these clans was a branch of Dzhuchids (Kerei and Dzhanibek) separated from �Chingiz�s heritage�. This branch gave its name, power and independence to the new state formation in Desht-i-Kypchak, a territorial state of the Kazakhs.
The Kazakh State originated from the above-national territorial dynasty formation (an heir of the Mongol Empire). However, to explain everything as a �Mongol syndrome� and to search in it the specifics of the structure of the Kazakh society is a simplified interpretation of Kazakh history. Precedents similar to the establishment of the Kazakh State, when the dynasty of the rulers was formed prior to the establishment of the national State were often in history. Practically all the dynastic (territorial) states in Western Europe were formed as non-national ones. Subjects first had to learn to be loyal to the dynasty, then to perceive the state as their ethnical and historical Motherland3 .
The term �kara-suyek� has its meaning only when it is opposed to �ak-suyek� and means only that a man called so does not belong to the Chingizid dynasty. In other words, this term was an expression of the prohibited superior power, as it was an exclusive right of the Chingizids. People who did not belong to the dynasty had no right to strive for power.
The term �kara-suyek� had no class meaning. Rather it was �a concept with variable geometry� (Burdie), a collective image of the subjects of the State. The term �kara-suyek� covered a wide range of people: from noblemen to common people. It was humiliating somehow, as it indicated a subordination of the posts in the vertical structure of ranks: governing-submission, ruling class-subject class (in the latter case the term �class� is used conventionally and has a statistically vague character).
The high class �ak-suyek� was a functionally differentiated community. The hierarchy inside this class was distributed by the formal characteristic of possessing authority, by virtue of its formal title. Those members of the dynasty who underwent the �inauguration� procedure were entitled the khans, the rest were called sultans.
Power was the class property of the �ak-suyek�. The right to inherit power was considered the highest and exclusive privilege of this class and raised it over the rest society. The power concentrated in the hands of the �ak-suyek� apart form prestige and privileges allowed them the �means of superiority� to save their private wealth. One of these means was the right to own and manage land (territory). This right was not a consequence of the class (or private) property of the land of separate khans, sultans as the total clan of Chingizids. Rather, the right was a consequence of the political power that belonged to the �ak-suyek�.
(To be continued )
Valery LAPSHIN
ALMATY, May 20 (THE GLOBE)
Peace is the most precious thing people have on the Earth. Unfortunately, public opinion accepts this idea rather conventionally. Moreover, Sergei Kapitsa, a renown physicist and science observer predicts the disintegration of public consciousness in XXI century. What it means, certainly does not need explanation.
Many people in their everyday practice use rather egoistic concepts to achieve goals. That�s why historically permanent interethnic conflicts, wars, the emergence and collapse of empires continue. World religions warn that all this can lead to the disintegration of everything in existence if people do not accept the salvation formula �do not subject the nearest one to what you do not wish to be subjected yourself�.
Mankind is ill. It as a system is being disbalanced more and more at the threshold of the third millenium. Interethnic conflicts are becoming extremely acute.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union meant a rapid change of the developments in the World history and caused a lot of unexpected problems for Western ideologists. They hoped and predicted earlier that nationalism would destroy Communism. It happened so in the Soviet Union. But regional problems here suddenly acquired global size and showed that nationalism could be used as an effective tool for destroying societies. The West apprehended that similar things might occur anywhere on Earth, the West countries included.
Once Kazakhstan was euphoric feeling itself the one who began to rock the boat; the December 1986 student riot triggered the process of dissolution of the Soviet Union. After that political rallies in Armenia and bloody events in Nagorny Karabakh, Azerbajan, Georgia, South Osetia and Chechnia followed� The parade of sovereignties in the vast post-Soviet territories, the emergence of national states and psychological discomfort of non-native nationals became the cause of the exodus of millions of refugees and forced migrants, mainly Russians, from those republics (the scenario in its most ominous form is being repeated in Yugoslavia�)
The euphoria of the first years of Perestroika is over. Now Kazakhstan not so willingly recalls its leadership in breaking up the Soviet Union. The March 1999 census in Kazakhstan revealed the figure 30% - for the Russians who previously were the national majority in Kazakhstan. Obviously, this figure will continuously decrease in the future. Most active and well-to-do people leave, those who stay in the country are the crippled and pensioners who are becoming a more and more heavy burden for the domestic ill economy. Robert Lyle, an economic observer of RFE/RL (March 12) from Washington, notes that, according to the UN, WB and others, mankind is facing the dramatic problem of the aging of the populations. It may be compared with an unseen iceberg towards which the world economies are drifting. The strongest of them may suffer the shipwreck. As for Kazakhstan with its meager economy, low birth rate and increasing emigration of young people, the aging of its population is becoming the most acute problem. The phenomenon of Russian emigration in Kazakhstan deserves special attention and research.
Not subjected to severe ethnic cleansing, why are Russians so eager to leave Kazakhstan?
The following are some quite obvious psychological explanations.
Kazakhstani Russians, as well as the ones in other CIS countries, are migrants and the ancestors of migrants, they do not have deep historical roots in the countries of origin. They would never fight to the last for the land in the country of residence as Yugoslav Serbs do. Geographical environment also shapes national characters. Until recently Russians considered picturesque Almaty and North Kazakhstan most attractive for residence, the nature there resembles their historical motherland most of all. The desert regions of the Central Kazakhstan, the great construction sites of Communism, and some 60 small towns-ghosts crushed by the economic crisis were deserted by Russians. This was to a great extent facilitated by short- sighted national and cadre politics in sovereign Kazakhstan, the cool and alienated attitude of the native Kazakhs to the Russian exodus, and psychological discomfort in the country officially recognized by President Nazarbayev.
Recently the Kazakhstani media discussed the issue of delimitation of the State border between Kazakhstan and China and public opinion shaped an idea that Kazakhstan ceded some of its territory to its mighty neighbor China. Just after the conclusion of the border treaty, tensions between the two countries emerged concerning the issue of trans-border rivers. The fears increased after the reported Chinese attempts without any consultations with Kazakhstan to divert the waters of the aforementioned rivers to Chinese towns. These discussions just heated the emigration mood of Russians and other non-natives who are the least willing to be subjected to Chinese assimilation. The negative impact of the past January Presidential �reelection� strongly criticized by the West also played its role. Even at the lowest levels, fears are spreading that similar events may occur at the forthcoming parliamentary election. According to the new election law, �Kazakh aliens� and representatives of non-Kazakh groups may not be registered. All of the aforementioned cannot help but facilitate the emigration moods in the country. But the sacred place is never empty as is known� According to analysts, some versions of developments may occur that may turn Kazakhstan�s independence into empty word. The state-forming nation runs the risk of staying alone with the heavy burden of post-perestroika problems.
Now mankind is experiencing all the evil consequences of mighty interethnic conflicts. Arguments on the issue �whose nation is better� can never reveal the truth. Nobody enjoys a monopoly on it. Some people say that if two persons are arguing, one of them is a fool and another one is a scoundrel. The former doesn�t possess full information on the subject of the argument and argues - a fool. The latter is more informed and tries to strengthen his argumentation by force � a scoundrel. The roles are changed in turn�Thank God, Kazakhstan didn�t follow most evil examples, but the social tension aggravated by the worsening of the economic situation increases�
Obviously, solving arguments by means of force is unacceptable and must be replaced by quiet analysis and constructive dialogue on all levels. Moreover, monitoring is needed�
For instance, parents and school teachers monitor children�s behavior. If smaller children try to fight each other they are simply separated and suggested good moral examples to follow. Children are splendid objects for scientific researchers�
There are only two forces which could prevent the disintegration of the society - one is moral (which is not in good order in the country) and the other one is military force (repression). Monitoring is needed on this field too, and priorities should be given not to the latter, i.e. to secret services but to the independent media and public organizations, in other words, to EXPLORERS with the ability to lead a constructive dialogue. This is very acute for Kazakhstan with its rudimentary democracy.
All Over the Globe is published by IPA House.
© 1998 IPA House. All Rights Reserved.