*111340*

State building process in Kazakhstan in the beginning of XX century

G. Dadabaeva, Doctor of Historical Sciences, KIMEP

INTRODUCTION

The inception of statehood on Kazakhstan’s territory goes far through the course of history. Tribes of saks, usuns, kangyus, turks, karluks, turkeshs have established their own states at their times, but they have only few links to the modern Kazakh statehood. They relate in terms of shared territory, common ethnicity and relativeness in their nature. Nevertheless, the modern Kazakh state was not a product of medieval ages. Mentality, ideas and concept of current statehood was incepted in early XX century, while the entire part of Asia was struggling towards the better future. Since 1735 Kazakh khanate was a subject of joining to Russian Empire, and at the end of century Kazakhstan completely celebrated a state under the Russian Union. Evaluation of outcomes from being part of the empire was criticized and favored among scholars, but one fact on the state’s development remains significant. That is Kazakhstan at first time gained European-typed institutionalization of territories, government and interstate relations. Russian hegemony created certain type of social layer which was described by high level of education, status and trust in society, belonging to the leading social movements.

History is based on cycles. At certain times there is a struggle for unions, later those in unions try to get their independence. In the beginning of 1900s, many groups inside the Russian Empery started to open underground movements to reshape the country and change the course for the entire state of Russia. But everyone was not alike, and they differed in terms of ideological, social and religious inclinations. Kazakhs could not hesitate to regain their centuries-long strong dream.

Even now Kazakh people demonstrate high feelings about independence and owning their state. It’s not similar to the idea of American freedom, French raison d’état or Arab gift from Deity. Nation is passionate, sympathetic and associative to the independence. Reasons are different: independence is a national pride, symbol of belongingness, subject for gifting it to the heirs (i.e. future generations of Kazakhs), and also holy land that was defended from anti-state powers. The last reason is particularly interesting. Since its creation in war, Kazakh Khanate has experienced many wars against its sovereignty, territorial integrity and population’s well-being. Generation by generation the message was being passed through elder population that land was defended and now it’s younger generation’s responsibility to protect the Kazakh freedom.

KAZAKH STATE IN THE EARLY 20^TH CENTURY

One of the main hindrances of studying the state is that there is no general state theory. Students and scholars of state studies become victims of different concepts, patterns and mechanisms for state creation, and basically none of them can be universalized. Many states adopted independent state structures which are based on their historic, ethnic and developmental track.

Another problem goes to the fact when the state was emerged. Whether it’s primordial times or later modernized formation – it’s a matter for discussion. Some scholars support the idea to look into the roots of state creation, some argue that modernized state is the subject for analysis.

But named factors were not limiting the authors on state formation, and they were continuing to write their perspectives finding the roots for developing a state from personal perspective to the formation of society. Such authors as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Marx, Engels, Durkheim, Weber and other were writing about the development of the concept of the state. Since the closest writings about the creation of the state in early XX century are mostly of the works of Max Weber and Karl Marx, I decided to go briefly through the ideas what was driving a state.

Marx considered the society’s mode of production, more specifically the production relations, as the basic foundation, on which the political and other institutions arise. In this sense the state serves the interest of the economically dominant class, which manages to control the civil bureaucracy as well as the military and police apparatus. Therefore the state in pursuing its policy becomes fully guided by the interests of this class. State policy is the political expression of such interest. In Ch.III, we will consider such groups more concretely.

On the other hand, Weber believes that the state has its own interest totally separate from the interest of any social group within the society. The state, according to him, emerges as part of a general trend toward rationalizing the society according to impersonal, universal, and general rules. In this sense the state is understood as a rationalized bureaucratic organization working according to general, universal, and impersonal rules that are devoted to specific ends established by the state itself. These rules make the state immune from the influence of society. The state according to this concept is fully autonomous in pursuing its own policy and is not subject to monopolize the means of coercion within well-defined territories.

Both definitions are technically well-done and theoretically concrete, but disadvantage of concepts provided Max and Weber appears in correlation between state and society, while it lacks some pragmatic aspects and operational tools. That’s why it might be important to touch upon theories of thinkers of the XX century like Michael Mann, Joel Migdal.

Mann, for instance, describes a state with four basic characteristics:

1) A differentiated set of institutions and personnel embodying;

2) Centrality in the sense that political forces radiate outwards from a center to cover;

3) A territorially demarcated area, over which it exercises;

4) A monopoly of authoritative, binding rule-making, backed up by monopoly of the means of physical violence.

The reason why this paper considers the early XX century as the time for inception of modern independence lays on the same direction with Mann’s definition of state. It’s not true that Kazakh state at that fulfilled all four of these parameters, but neither state did in times of their inception. Especially if we talk about state creation, not of the national creation, the criteria for the naming a politico-social formation that is going to be called a “state” should be the level of preparedness to listed parameters.

Illustrating the hypothesis with Kazakhstan’s case:

(i) A differentiated set of institutions and personal embodying, I would rewrite it, as

(i2) A developed plan on setting institutions and short list of members to rule

(ii) We can leave the second as it is

(iii) A territorially demarcated area, over which it exercises, it seems to be correct to address it

(iii2) Documentarily proved plan on claiming the territorially demarcated area, since you usually demarcate it when a real state is build, but you can’t do that legally before an official proclamation of sovereignty. For instance, Kazakhs did their demarcation in 1920^th under the USSR, defending the spoken called Kazakh territories through any possible documented materials

(iv) A monopoly of authoritative, binding rule-making, backed up by monopoly of the means of physical violence, instead of this probably another statement should be written

(iv2) Legal and ideological action plan for creating a state

IDEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS FOR CREATING KAZAKH STATE

In previous chapter we talked a lot about theoretical frameworks and upon how to build a functioning state issue, but it definitely lacked some in-depth case study and exemplification of general and specific theories.

Applying to Marx theory of state, we can identify those groups which he calls a dominant class. But the problem is there are many groups struggling for obtaining a dominance in XX century Kazakhstan. Certainly, we will point out the mainstream formations.

After analyzing the society and its core intelligencia through political spectrum we can define four major groups:

I) Panislamic Kazakhs oriented primarily to Bukhara and Turkistan, and who immediately wanted to gain independence from Russian Empire

II) Panislamic Kazakhs raised among Russians and oriented to the Western set of ideas and values, who were negotiating actually for keeping Kazakhstan inside the Russian-based state and obtaining autonomous position for Kazakh sub-state

III) Panturkist Kazakhs who were desperate for creating a super-structure with Kazakh participation where unity of Turkic ethnos and cultures would be a virtue.

IV) Democratic Kazakhs from peasantry who were supporting Bolsheviks and future Communists. That was predominantly representatives of pre-Revolutionary magazine “Aykap”

Generally speaking those parties were represented by the well-educated and talented Kazakh inteligencia. But the location of their origin and further education were sort of bias, making them incline towards social ideological groups.

In reality these parties hadn’t had any serious and well-researched political agendas and development plans. But despite these obstacles, social movements had introduced their political parties, among which most active ones were parties “Alash”, “Ush zhuz”, “Erik”, Shuro Islami”.

POLITICAL, MORAL, LEGAL ASPECTS OF CREATING KAZAKH STATE

a. Political aspects of creating Kazakhstan

Leading elites of Kazakh people in the beginning of XX century have had the political right to establish their own state. In these shaky times Kazakh were a real player and important figure for geopolitics and trade relations. Loosing Kazakh lands for China, for example could lead to unexpected consequences for the Russian Empire and Soviet Union later on. Another important thing is that Kazakhs had their political culture from nomadic diplomacy, tribal hierarchy and primordial ruling system. But only one thing was political hindrance for Kazakhstan’s independence in those times. Central Asian nations were part of the entire Empire and dividing Kazakhstan out was a significant challenge for the empire’s well-being. Neither could do the Soviet Union. Making Central Asian other states a second Alaska would be non sense. Hence, having independent Kazakhstan in those times was politically acceptable, but not feasible.

b. Moral aspects of creating Kazakhstan

When Kazakhstan joined the Russian Empire, it was a step due to destabilization and uncertainty. Never would Kazakhstan join any country unless there is a threat of complete destruction. So, since the war and threat was ended, it would morally be right, if the lands were allowed to be free again. Here comes the strategic interest of Russia:
“We helped you during harsh times, so you should make something in return”, it might even manifestation of rephrasing the Golden Rule. That’s why Kazakhstan was morally obligued to stay adjoint with Russia. It’s an ethical dilemma. But was the change of regime let’s say allow Kazakhstan to be out. Because, in early XVIII century, it was an empire which made a decision and Kazakhs had to respect imperial honor to accept steppe nation into their entity. But history proved that it wasn’t true. Even after Bolshevik communists came to power, Kazakhstan’s status remained the same. Though, some might call USSR an empire.

c. Legal aspects of creating Kazakhstan

Pity of that time there was no United Nations Charter at all, when the forces were ready. Nowadays we would appeal to its part on self-determination. But had Kazakhstan legal rights to be created is very interesting question for discussion.

In previous years Kazakh Khanate had some diplomatic rights to conduct international affairs; it had certain administrative system which was guiding the state in its daily activities. It was legal in terms of comparitivism, when after fall of Osman empire, Balkans and many other African territories formerly conquered by seljuks were gaining independence. But here comes curious question how can one determine in Westphalian system of states, without any regional organizations and global super-structures on determination of sovereignty. That’s why we conclude that legally creating Kazakhstan would be unfeasible and unacceptable.

Conclusion

To sum up, the independence of 1991 is coming as a heritage of the early years of XX century. The idea to create a sovereign Kazakh state during that time was historically acceptable move, but politically unfeasible. There were different powers: muslims, panturkists, democrats, who fought for their ideas, to make them living. But unfortunately they were not focused and purely understanding where were they moving to or having any suitable political concept to be “congruent” to the time demands. But despite their failure it was a useful experience to develop Kazakh statehood and experiment to find a good model for future state creation. Final form of Kazakh state could be created even earlier than 1991, but the political repressions and famine halted this process almost for half a century.

Bibliography

Bendix, R. (2002). Nation-Building and Citizenship: Studies of Our Changing Social Order. New Brunswick.

History and Ethnography Institute named after Shokan Valikhanov. (2008). Alash Qozgalysy. Almaty

Kozybayev, M. (2002). Aktandaktar Akikaty. Almaty.

Mann, M. (1988). States, War and Capitalism: Studies in Political Sociology.

Migdal, J. (1988). Strong Societies and Weak States: State-Society Relations and State Capabilities in the Third World. Princeton University Press.

OECD. (2009). State-Building in Situations of Fragility.

Strath, B., Torstendahl, R. (1992). State Theory and State Development: States as Network Structures in Changes in European Modern History, London.

Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York. Oxford University Press.