Between Kazakh and Russian: when language choices become political

Authors: Luca De Magistris, Irene Milani, Vivian Schwarzwälder

Among all the Central Asian countries that once were part of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan is still heavily affected by Russian influence in many regards. This is reflected in the complexity of the language debate, which, since its outset in the 1980s (Fierman, 1998, p. 175), unfolds in different ways and in different realms that are not merely linguistic. At the bottom of the debate lies article 7 of the Constitution of Kazakhstan which states that Kazakh is recognized as the “state language”, whilst Russian, its “colonial language”, “shall be officially used on equal grounds along with Kazakh”[1]. Even though the wording is vague (Fierman, 1998, p. 179), both languages are coexisting due to many reasons, for instance, the geographic proximity, or the demographic distribution of ethnic Russians. In addition, Kazakhstan values greatly its economic relations with Russia, therefore Kazakhs still see Russian as the language to learn for economic growth and opportunities.

With that said, Kazakhstan has not been immune to the de-russification trends affecting the post-communist space. After 1991, Kazakhs have slowly grown as the ethnic majority in the nation (Bureau of National Statistics, 2009; 2021), with a parallel growth in the interest in the Kazakh language and culture. However, these developments should be recontextualized under the unfortunate circumstances of the ongoing war. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Kazakh language shift becomes more significant if regarded as a conscious choice bearing political meaning.

As the war persists, so do the changes in the attitude of Kazakhstan toward its titular language. Very recently there have been some developments coming from the upper echelons of Kazakhstan, whose stance in the Russian-Kazakh language debate completely capsized. During a CIS summit in October, 2023 was declared to be the “Year of the Russian Language as a Language of Interethnic Communication in the CIS”[2]. As hollow as such a declaration might be, it still retains a strong symbolic significance: if framed in the post-February 24th political climate, such statements could be read as supporting one side instead of the other, even if this might not reflect Kazakhstan’s actual stance regarding the war. While people on social media were still debating over Ramil Mukhoryapov’s controversial statement linking Kazakh with nationalist sentiments[3], things suddenly took a different turn. The government proposed draft legislation to make knowledge of the Kazakh language a requirement to obtain citizenship. While this may seem unexpected, the draft seems to represent a securitization move to counterbalance the mass flow of Russian citizens arriving in Kazakhstan because of the war and the subsequent partial mobilization. Statistics from ЕMISS show that 1.25 million people entered Kazakhstan between July and September alone (Figure 1), and the concern over this data clearly emerges in Prime Minister Smailov’s address to the Parliament, in which he proposes the aforementioned draft[4].

Figure 1: Russian citizens that moved abroad [Выезд граждан России за рубеж], EMISS, November 2022

These changes in the state-promoted language planning emerge as erratic when compared with the grassroots sentiment towards Kazakh. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the gradual detachment from Russia—including its culture, language, and traditions—was a predictable trend in those countries that suddenly gained independence. The pace of this de-russification trend was certainly slower in Kazakhstan, but still, it was a steady process that found its exponential growth only in recent years. Some attempts have been made, such as the project “The functioning and development of languages of Kazakhstan for 2011-2020” (Aksholakova & Ismailova, 2013, p. 1581); but the protection of Kazakh was always accompanied by a warning not to abandon Russian as the language of opportunities. However, if at first there have been joint efforts to make the two languages coexist, things have started to change in the wake of this year’s events.

After February 24th, when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, anti-war demonstrations sprung all around the world. People have been engaging in different acts of protest and, while many people took it to the streets, gathering in front of Russian embassies in different cities, others chose to take a stand in less manifest ways. Symbolic public acts, such as the display of symbolic images, or wearing certain colors, are a common non-violent way of protesting. Although it depends on the circumstances, even the language one chooses to use in day-to-day communication can be considered as a political stance, a non-conventional way of resistance. This take is particularly relevant when it comes to Kazakhstan.

What we noticed is that, after the war, there has been a shift in the intent that lies behind the “kazakhization”, (Smagulova, 2008): people are “rallying around their language” and are now actively choosing to speak (or learn) Kazakh as a political act against Russia’s supremacist actions and the hegemonic use of the Russian language in Kazakhstan.

A survey conducted by Demoscope in April 2022 confirms that there is a correlation between how Kazakhs feel about the war in Ukraine and the language they speak (Figures 2-7). The survey did not take into account language per se, as the questions were mainly about the war, and they seem to support the idea of Kazakhstan still being loyal to Russia. However, the pollster provided a comparative view of the same data, which leads to a completely different interpretation. Since Demoscope published the percentages of people who responded either in Kazakh or Russian for each answer, it is possible to draw some conclusions on people’s attitudes towards Russia, based on the language they chose. For instance, those who chose to respond in Kazakh, albeit only 23% of the total respondents, showed clearly different sentiments towards the war. They are considerably more neutral than those who chose to respond in Russian, who also exclude any possibility of a similar conflict starting between Russia and Kazakhstan. This survey helps to visualize in numbers those grassroots and bottom-up attitudes towards Kazakh and Russian, which have often translated into initiatives to promote the Kazakh language. These initiatives, such as language clubs, forums, and digital developments, along with the general sentiment that we have observed on social media, all concur with the strengthening of the Kazakh civil society in the name of national identity and titular language.

 

Figures 2-3: Which side of the conflict do you support?, Demoscope, April 2022

Figures 4-5: Is a similar conflict between Russia and Kazakhstan possible?, Demoscope, April 2022

Figures 6-7: What do you think is happening now in Ukraine?, Demoscope, April 2022

Our analysis is not founded on the claim that language and political identity are one and the same. Speaking Kazakh does not automatically imply being anti-Russia, just as much as speaking Russian does not equate to being anti-Ukraine. Language is primarily the vehicle through which discourses, ideas, and thoughts are expressed, ergo changing the how does not necessarily change the what. However, the sudden language shift in Kazakhstan still holds some political significance because of the circumstances in which it occurred. Changes in political discourse do not necessarily imply changes in language choice; still, further research on the correlation between language and discourse could benefit from other factors such as the language of education, news sources, or media in general.

On a final note, if in many parts of the world, the correlation between language and politics is rather straightforward, when it comes to post-communist countries it often takes many different forms. The peculiar case of Kazakhstan shows that resisting the hegemony of the colonial language, especially if it is still entrenched in the nation after so many years of independence, assumes great political significance. Hence, given the current political climate, it is important to recognize the choice of speaking and learning Kazakh for what it is: a way of reclaiming national identity.


[1] Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 1995, available at https://www.akorda.kz/en/official_documents/constitution

[2] http://www.kremlin.ru/supplement/5856

[3] During a meeting, the highly influential businessman claimed that speaking Kazakh to Russian people is a “display of nationalism” [«проявление такого чуть-чуть национализма»] and it is not “derivative of great culture” [«это не от большой культуры»]. The video of the incident is available at https://vk.com/wall-31643537_7454231?lang=en

[4] Prime Minister Smailov’s response to Parliamentary Inquiry DC-278, 3 November 2022, available at https://parlam.kz/en/mazhilis/question-details/19001

Some news about ElMaRB project

The ElMaRB project has officially ended, but its legacy will live. Margarita Zavadskaya, Elena Gorbacheva, and several other of our colleagues taught a course on political behavior in Post-Communist states during the Autumn semester, which was based on the research we have been doing during the three years of the ElMaRB project. We enjoyed the course and we had a wonderful group of students. One of the assignments the students had was to write a blog post on a phenomenon related to political behavior in the studied region. The students did a great job working on their posts and we want to publish the best one on our blog. It deals with the issue of language in Kazakhstan – a state where there are two official languages, Kazakh and Russian, and where Russia’s invasion of Ukraine changed the attitudes toward language use.

In our project, we did not deal with languages specifically, but they were always on our minds. The main contribution of ElMaRB was a dataset on electoral malpractice, split into two parts – one for Russian elections, and one for the national elections in the world (soon to be published). For the international elections, one aspect that we struggled with was what media database can we use to study how national elections in different countries are reported. Of course, to see how media coverage affects elections in a certain country, you need to look at the media in the language of that country. This task would be impossible for a small team like ours without a database like Factiva, which aggregates news from 200 countries in 32 languages. This made it possible for us to see how widespread the negative messages on elections are among different countries and in different years and how these messages correlate with turnout and election results. So for us, in the ElMaRB project, the role of the negative language in mass media used to describe elections and electoral malpractice was important. The blog post we publish in the next post approaches the languages from a completely different perspective, yet it also shows how languages can affect (political) behavior and values of citizens.

The last conference last week

Last week, on 8-9 December 2022, our project organised its final conference ‘Elections after 2022: The short and long-term impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine’.

The military aggression of Russia in Ukraine has multiple reverberations in all spheres from politics, business, and energy to culture, environment, and migration. There is barely an aspect of our everyday realities that have not been affected by the war in Ukraine. Elections are by no means an exception. Since many European states held or are about to hold national elections after February 24, we may expect that the war interfered with usual political landscapes and policy agendas by stressing the challenges of security, solidarity, energy politics as well as politically motivated redistribution policies. Russia as a high-capacity authoritarian regime that regularly holds elections marred with fraud and propaganda has been exporting electoral malpractice elsewhere through a variety of channels: hybrid warfare, media, trolls and bots, policy advice, and outright attempts to meddle with other states’ elections. The aim of the conference is to provide and share scholarly expertise on the consequences and mechanisms of how electoral processes are being affected by the ongoing war in Ukraine.

ИзображениеThe conference consisted of six panels and two roundtable discussions, with participants traveling from Europe and North America, as well as joining online.

The researchers discussed ongoing Russia’s war against Ukraine and its implications on elections in Europe and Russia, as well as on migration and contentious politics. The aims of the conference were to locate our research given the new circumstances, 2) to look at the past and forthcoming elections in the EU and beyond with a focus on countries that share a common border with Russia, 3) to spell out the main shifts in the party and electoral politics, citizens preferences as well as 4) the role of media and technologies in sustaining electoral integrity and preventing polarization and hate speech. Finally, we present the research results of the three-year research project Electoral malpractice, Cyber-security and its Political Consequences in Russia and Beyond (ElMaRB) funded by the University of Helsinki. Изображение

After two days of intensive discussions, exchange of ideas and cooperation, we move to the final stage of our ElMaRB project. This conference allowed us to present what we were doing during the past three years, strengthen our connections with researchers in Finland, Europe, and North America, and build a foundation fo the new projects to come. We want to thank all the participants and the University of Helsinki for making it possible.

Project news

There are 2 months left until the end of our ElMaRB projects, but we still have news to share with you.

First, we have a new project planner, who joins us for the final months of ElMaRB to help us gather the remaining data and organise the final conference.  His name is Viktor Lambin and he is a Doctoral Student, at the Aleksanteri Institute, University of Helsinki. Viktor completed two master’s programmes in European and Nordic Studies, and Global Security Issues. He is working on his PhD on the Enemization of Russian public discourse in national media. 

 

 

 

The second news relates to the conference mentioned earlier. The ongoing war of Russia against Ukraine has changed so many things, and we want to discuss how it affects elections in Europe and beyond. That is why on 8-9 December 2022, our project organises its final conference ‘Elections after 2022: The short and long-term impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine’.

The military aggression of Russia in Ukraine has multiple reverberations in all spheres from politics, business, and energy to culture, environment, and migration. There is barely an aspect of our everyday realities that have not been affected by the war in Ukraine. Elections are by no means an exception. Since many European states held or are about to hold national elections after February 24, we may expect that the war interfered with usual political landscapes and policy agendas by stressing the challenges of security, solidarity, energy politics as well as politically motivated redistribution policies. Russia as a high-capacity authoritarian regime that regularly holds elections marred with fraud and propaganda has been exporting electoral malpractice elsewhere through a variety of channels: hybrid warfare, media, trolls and bots, policy advice, and outright attempts to meddle with other states’ elections. The aim of the conference is to provide and share scholarly expertise on the consequences and mechanisms of how electoral processes are being affected by the ongoing war in Ukraine. We intentionally expanded the geographical realm of our discussion since the war suggests worldwide repercussions and it does not seem reasonable anymore to differentiate between ‘post-Soviet’, ‘post-Communist’, and the rest of Europe. During the conference we seek 1) to locate our research given the new circumstances, 2) to look at the past and forthcoming elections in the EU and beyond with a focus on countries that share a common border with Russia, 3) to spell out the main shifts in the party and electoral politics, citizens preferences as well as 4) the role of media and technologies in sustaining electoral integrity and preventing polarization and hate speech. Finally, we present the research results of the three-year research project Electoral malpractice, Cyber-security and its Political Consequences in Russia and Beyond (ElMaRB) funded by the University of Helsinki.

More information on the conference will be appearing on the Conference page, so stay tuned.

 

European Rus­si­ans and Rus­sian Europeans: Polit­ical At­ti­tudes and Ex­pect­a­tions of the Anti-War Mi­grants

Last Friday Dr. Margarita Zavadskaya gave a talk “European Rus­si­ans and Rus­sian Europeans: Polit­ical At­ti­tudes and Ex­pect­a­tions of the Anti-War Mi­grants” based on her piece for Aleksanteri Insight. In the talk, Margarita talked about the research she is conducting together with the OK Russians project, studying the new Russian migrants and their attitudes. Professor Olga Davydova-Minguet served as the discussant of the paper, and Dr. Teemu Oivo chaired the seminar.

About 200,000 Russians fled soon after Russia started the invasion of Ukraine. This is the biggest brain drain since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Will these migrants form an alternative intellectual hub for a democratising Russia? Would they become co-creators of an alternative imagery of Russia? Here we offer a cursory look at the Russian migrants, drawing on an original survey carried out from 28 March to 4 April 2022. Since the characteristics of the population data of migrants are unknown, we rely on a convenience sample of 1,700 respondents recruited via online relocation groups and Telegram channels as well as networks close to the OK Russians project (okrussians.org). The project focuses on providing assistance with relocation and regularly monitors migrants’ situations.

The full version of Aleksanteri Insight issue can be read online here. The talk on the same topic in Russian that Margarita gave to Riddle can be watched here.

Max Grömping ‘Online Disinformation and (Mis)Perceptions of Electoral Integrity’

In June, we had a most exciting ElMaRB seminar with Max Grömping, Lecturer with the School of Government and International Relations at Griffith University, Australia. He gave a talk “Online Disinformation and (Mis)Perceptions of Electoral Integrity”. Max Alyukov, Research Fellow at the King’s College, UK, acted as a discussant. We are happy to announce that the talk is now available for watching online:

NPRE seminar with Amelie Tolvin

In two weeks, on the 15th of June, our project trainee Amelie Tolvin will present her MA thesis at the New perspectives on Russia and Eurasia seminar. The title of her talk is Use your weapons:” Protest Repression in Lukashenka’s Belarus, and you can watch it online in Zoom or come to Aleksanteri Institute meeting room (Metsätalo, wing C, 2nd floor) at 14:00 and watch it live. Vladimir Gel’man, Professor of Russian Politics at Aleksanteri Institute, University of Helsinki, will act as a discussant.

Here is the abstract of Amelie’s talk:
Belarusians took to the streets following the August 2020 Presidential election in their country, decrying falsified results that gave Alyaksandr Lukashenka his sixth term in power – the authoritarian leader had been ruling Belarus, known as ‘Europe’s last dictatorship,’ for 26 years. The protest movement, arguably the largest and most persistent of its kind in the history of the country, was met with disproportionate levels of coercion and repression at the hands of the regime. Within the first few days of the movement, over thirty thousand were detained.

The objective of this paper is to examine the varying security service responses to the protest movement in Belarus in an effort to ascertain common patterns and developments in the Belarusian protest-repression dynamic. While utilizing theories of threat perception, repression, and contentious politics, this paper attempts to ascertain the security service decision-making processes that have ultimately led to varying levels of repression throughout the country.

Zoom: https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/64906887561?pwd=YXFrT2dydWcvK3Bma0JVU1dxU3pGUT09

Meeting ID: 649 0688 7561
Passcode: 556814

ElMaRB seminar next week

On the 8th of June, next week’s Wednesday, we will have our next ElMaRB seminar with Max Grömping, Lecturer with the School of Government and International Relations at Griffith University, Australia. Dr. Grömping will give a talk “Online Disinformation and (Mis)Perceptions of Electoral Integrity”. Max Alyukov, Research Fellow at the King’s College, UK, will serve as a discussant.

The seminar will start at 10:00 sharp and can be attended via Zoom https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/61887773936?pwd=MDczaFNuWGlWY3lQQVpWMjBPeUFIZz09

 Disinformation campaigns, sowing doubts about the procedural fairness of elections aim at the heart of citizens’ trust in democracy. At the same time, autocrats deploy disinformation to whitewash deeply fraudulent contests. This paper investigates the drivers of public perceptions and misperceptions of electoral integrity by linking public opinion data from 82 national elections with expert survey data on disinformation and de facto electoral integrity. Building on theories of rational belief updating and motivated reasoning, it argues that disinformation campaigns are efficacious in undermining belief accuracy among both winners and losers. The results cast doubt on recent advances in disinformation research that emphasize limited exposure and minimal effects. This contributes a cross-nationally comparative perspective to studies of (dis)information processing and belief updating, as well as attitude formation and trust surrounding highly salient political institutions such as elections.

A Big Exodus seminar

On the 31st of May, Margarita Zavadskaya will organise a seminar where she will present the results of the survey of the new Russian migrants who left the country because of the war. She and other researchers collaborated with the project Ok Russians to find out what are the political attitudes of those who decided not to stay in Russia after it attacked Ukraine on the 24th of February this year.  Join us in Zoom to listen to the first preliminary results of the project:

https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/67983658919?pwd=aTRvRS9SaVFoSjBkbzFmUlFSUi9CQT09

Meeting ID: 679 8365 8919
Passcode: 021541

A Big Exodus: The Anti-War Migrants from Russia, Political Attitudes and Expectations

Authors:

Emil Kamalov, doctoral student, European University Institute (EUI), Florence, Italy

Nika Kostenko

Ivetta Sergeeva, doctoral student, European University Institute (EUI), Florence, Italy

Margarita Zavadskaya, researcher, University of Helsinki, Finland

About 200,000 Russians fled soon after Russian government launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February, 24, 2022. This is the biggest exodus from Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Among these emigrés, there are leading experts in top-notch industries including IT sector, representatives of non-commercial sector, science and education. The outflow of highly qualified labor force will lead to the loss of human capital and knowledge in Russia and affect societies in the destination countries.

We present the early results of the online panel survey of Russian migrants (N=1.500) carried out from March 27 to April 4, 2022 in collaboration with the project Ok Russians. Our sample includes only those respondents who agreed to participate in the survey. The questionnaire encompasses questions related to demography, socio-economic status, profession, political attitudes, expectations and plans as well as reasons for emigration.

Our preliminary findings suggest that new migrants are mostly educated young Russians between 20 and 40. They are mostly employed in the realms of intellectual and creative professions such as IT, data science, own business, academia, art and culture, ‘white collars’. Most of the respondents used to be politically active citizens and many faced threats due to their political views. Every second respondent admits fear of political prosecution.

ElMaRB seminar ‘Internet voting in Russia: Democratizing Power of Internet Voting Revised?’

Next week’s Wednesday we continue our ElMaRB seminar series and will have a presentation by Iuliia Krivonosova, Doctoral researcher at Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia, and at the Kompetenzzentrum für Public Management, University of Bern, Switzerland. Iuliia will present her research ‘Internet voting in Russia: Democratizing Power of Internet Voting Revised?’. Bogdan Romanov, Junior Research Fellow in E-Governance, University of Tartu, will serve as discussant.

Internet voting has pride of place among democratic innovations. It enfranchises new groups of voters, brings greater voter convenience and decreases costs of voting (Alvarez & Hall, 2003; Goodman & Stokes, 2016; Krimmer, 2012). So far, the studies of Internet voting implementation have been limited to democratic countries, which helps to reinforce the narrative of Internet voting as an innovation with democratic potential. At the same time, authoritarian regimes have a lot of potential to become norm entrepreneurs (Sunstein, 1996) generating new “alternative norms of appropriateness” (Jones, 2015, p. 26) which has already happened in the field of cyberspace (Kneuer & Harnisch, 2016) and e-participation (Åström et al., 2012). Therefore, for Internet voting to be an innovative solution, it deems important to study its development in a non-democratic environment. I consider one of such cases – Internet voting implementation in the 2019 Local elections in Moscow, Russia – in order to answer the research question “How is Internet voting implemented in a non-democratic environment?”
Iuliia’s research interests include digital transformation, e-governance and e-democracy, party and electoral systems, post-communist institution-building, and democratization. Outside academia, Iuliia has served in election observation missions, contributed to the work of NGOs (International IDEA, Varieties of Democracy, Transparency International, British Council), and popularized knowledge on elections via op-eds for various think thanks and magazines.

The event will be organised in Zoom, please join us at https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/68911907349?pwd=aFgvald4aGlDSnYzWVJyZkVEQnczdz09
Meeting ID: 689 1190 7349
Passcode: 521669