Article 1. The Word Was First
A. KAZHEGELDIN

I would like to make clarifications on the present series title “The Way to Renovate Kazakhstan”. I know in advance that several “well-wishers” working by their own spirit or by request will say that Kazhegeldin has decided to appropriate the Solzhenitsin’s laurels to himself and become another nation’s prophet.

This is not how things are going. Actually I see my role much more modest. I intend to put bring up the questions I consider the most important, but I do not intend to give final answers. My intention is not to prophesy. I would like to invite my compatriots to a talk. I am not going to preach, I would like to invite people to consider things and to talk together instead.

This discussion is about politics. In present we understand politics as something party-conflict which deals with struggle for power. For many of usif not for the majority, politics is associated with the smugness and intrigues of authorities on one hand and the intransigence of opposition on the other hand. Politics is considered as something destructive interfering normal life and work.

But besides that we are talking about economic policy, social policy, policy in education and culture, regional policy, national relations policy, etc. Dealing with political activities (I do not want to say “struggle”) we should not forget about political work.

I assume that Kazakhstan extremely needs the discussion of this kind in present. We need normal competition of ideas dealing with the real, practical renovation of our life. In this case we will soon find out who is who in our politics.

Where are we going and what will we become tomorrow? Are our orientations correct?

Are we honest towards the principles introduced by us?

And the key thing. How do our principles correspond the present practical activities in economy, social sphere, culture and information, national and regional politics, international relations?

We extremely need answers to these questions. And if this is true, we take a risk to become a nation without clear ideas and principles, without moral settings and life orientations. Thus, we are close to become a nation without perspectives.

Starting I should say that the Program”2030” does not solve this problem unfortunately. Unless it pretends to be the basic document in respect of ideology and strategy. This program does not contain persuasive ideas, alas. Looking nice phrases do not fill the lack of contents.

This program is unwarrantably time extended. To the year of 2030 we will have completely different problems. We will have different environment in which those problems will have to be solved. I am sure that to that time (actually – much earlier) we will have completely different orientations. I hope that to that time we will have not just a new president, but different political regime as well.

The Program “2030” was failed on the first stages of its realization. Nothing has been made inspite of very few promises. To speak quite frankly, we are moving opposite direction to the one promised in that project. We constantly step backwards. Everything promised in that project appears to be regression. I consider this stillborn project as the President’s mistake from the very beginning.

The project itself looks like Astana construction. Lot of noise, tremendous resources are spent. The results are promised to the time until which none will manage to live. And now it gets even worse than before. Both projects – “2030” and Astana – look like decorative ones. The external side of the Program “2030” loses its attractiveness the same way as the decorative facades of Astana buildings fall down.

The Nazarbaev’s mistake is that he did not use the changes in international situation, particularly international financial crisis to reject this failing and helpless “strategy” for good looking reason. Experienced individuals have softly advised him to do that way. But they have not been heard.

It seems like this Program has been too widely advertised by ideological and propaganda tools. For this reason the rejection of “2030” will be a scandal even if it would be done for good looking reasons allegedly not depending from authorities.

But as the Program has not been advertised during election campaign, it seems like the sobering up is taking place in this respect. But still no serious intellectual confession of “2030” has taken place yet. The last time for that is passing by. A bit more will be too late.

In this situation our society has to realize its intellectual potential itself independently of authorities.

“Independent expertise” and “Initiative projects” became very popular in the world for recent decades. These are the inalienable part of a civil society. I assume that it could be useful for us to start from the independent expertise of the situation in the country and continue it be the complex project of the country renovation. It is high time to break the state monopoly for strategic planning!

It is impossible to say what does our state try to reach, which course does it follow, which type of socio-political system does it try to construct. Official propaganda does not answer these questions and if it does – more likely in negative sense: listen attentively and understand differently. It is not a secret that it became normal in our country to say one thing and to do completely different thing. You can guess what do authorities really want to reach assigning an opposing sense to their declarations. As more they talk about stability in Kazakhstan, as more reasons to expect crisis in a short time you have.

If they talk about democracy it means that another attempt to provide the power irremovability is coming. They talk about “dead end of authoritarianism” right before the authoritarian tendencies increase.

In another words, we have deficit of projects and forecasts at the same time. But the most dangerous is that we have a lack of free discussion on these issues. We do not have public and professional forum where we could discuss these issues professionally in an open way.

But the authorities try to make an image of normal political life in our country. Even the whole plays attempted to demonstrate the disagreement with supreme power, its willingness to respond the society’s calls are directed. But it is evident for any adult that all this is made by previously written scenarios.

The officially permitted polemics do not touch principal issues in any case. A big deal of problems exciting the society and decisive for our country development remain closed to free discussion. They are discussed in kitchens but not in the media or on TV. They are discussed by residents, but not by politicians or professionals responsible for the situation in the country.

Having thought a long I have come to the conclusion that we should take a new look at what we say and hear today, a look from the side. It happens that people stop seeing the thing they look at for a long time, stop hearing about the thing they listen about for a long time.

We should hear in a different way what do authorities talk about. We should hear in a different way what media speak about daily. May be we could quit forgiving the lie and high-flown chatter this way.

We should carefully listen what do people talk about. To what people talk on a residential level to their close friends and relatives, but not in specially selected reportages.

After that we need full and fair revision of what do our spiritual leaders, representative of our intellectual elite talk about.

Finally, we should listen in anew way to what does opposition talk about. Is it decisive and consequential enough? And is it constructive enough in its alternative suggestions?

I understand that this issue can not be covered in a single article. It can not even be covered by a series of articles. It is also hard to predict will a book be combined from those articles or not.

But this is not the deal. It is important that we could start a serious and responsible talk on this issue. It is important that those individuals who are not indifferent to the future of Kazakhstan and the destiny of its people join our talk.

I do not pretend for knowledge of everything and final truth at all. I am sure that the country renovation strategy will even be more valuable if people of various orientations, various specialties and various temperaments take part its design.

We are talking about various aspects of the country renovation: cultural, socio-political, socio-economic, ethnic-social, others. It is very hard to bring all those aspects together. Besides that, lots of people are really infected by intransigence in ideology and politics, in power and opposition.

There are some ways to overcome it.

For instance, there is certain technique of international negotiations conduction called “Theory and Practice of Negotiations Process”. When discussion reaches a deadlock a short break is made. After the break the negotiations participants get together again and try to find the contact on personal level. What does unify us as individuals? Do we like dogs or hate smoking? Does the classical music calm us down or modern popular music excites us? Contradictions are taken away and people try to make accents on their common points. Then the negotiations go on and are often successfully completed. Such “adult games” often help to avoid international scandals and even war conflicts.

There is a wisdom, which I have already referred to in my book “Kazakhstan: The Right of Choice”. It is hard for the group of people to bring together the projects and images of what they want, but it is much easier to come to consensus on none of them wants. It could seem to be far from constructive ideas. But is it possible to start construction without cleaning construction area? Will a person start renovating his home without taking all garbage out? Earlier I thought that practical problems should be solved in a practical way without any discussions. I thought that we should keep ideology for ideologists and politics for politicians. And I should take care of my “business” and solve practical problems. But thinking about overcoming of political and social crisis in the country I’ve radically reevaluated my words and ideas.

Firstly, I have made a “back step” – from economy to the social sphere. The economic policy is evaluated on the state level differently if the major criterion is the life of residents, millions of your compatriots.

Our economic discussions should start from the consideration of the fact that it is impossible to live that way. The movie directed in Russia by Stanislav Govorukhin has the same title: “It Is Impossible To Live That Way!”. This is the formula.

When I quit working for the government I have felt a great shame for that, how some of my compatriots lived. But I feel a real pain when I see, how the majority lives now.

The life of people will not change until we do not change our economic strategy. At the same time it is impossible to change economics in any way without serious changes in politics. It is impossible in our conditions to make any changes in politics without serious changes in legal system and law.

To make adequate changes in legislation we need new ideology. Just in this case we will be able to work out clear criteria of what is acceptable and what is not. Otherwise authorities will keep taking our people in by “Eurasianism”, various discussions on the advantages of authoritarianism and expenses of transition period.

Here we consequently come to the problems of information freedom. We will not succeed at all if the thinking part of our society will keep communicating each other on a half tone. We are to strive for the situation of normal social, political and ideal communication in our country.

Here is the sequential chain: social problems – economics – politics – law – ideology – communication.

I can’t say that this chain is clear from professor’s point of view, but this is the way how I see the sequence of problems from politician’s point of view, if he really tries to change something in our life. It appears that the decision of socio-economic problems should be started from the sphere of ideas and political morality.

It could be surprising to hear that from the person who was pretty tough and thrifty prime minister. But I say that as a politician knowing our recent history. The examples are quite near. The communist regime and Soviet Empire have been destroyed by “Glasnost”, i.e. word, information, ideas, knowledge. Thus, “political romanticism” can often be very practical.

Thus, let us take all our will and responsibility in the hand and think, what will our descendants say of us if we keep silence now. What will they say of those, who could become the nations conscience but preferred to keep silence: who from fear and who from authorities’ crumbs?

“451 F”, July 1999