In his address on March 15th at the III National Kurultai, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev made several intriguing and significant statements, albeit expressed in an Eastern, subtly nuanced manner. Foremost among these was the discussion on history, which President Tokayev referred to as a «factor of national consolidation.»

Several points were raised in this context. The first reflects the complexities of identity search in contemporary Kazakhstan, as the text above mentioned, «this is all our history, the path our people have traveled.» In essence, within a single paragraph, two often competing concepts are employed — people and nation. While the former is straightforward, the latter is not as clear-cut. It is ambiguous whether a civic or ethnic understanding of the nation is implied. Judging from the context, the discussion leans more towards the ethnic perspective.

Another point is related to the assertion that «one should not oppose different historical figures, past and modern periods of history.» This is a subtle matter, as it is not entirely clear from the text whether this statement also applies to our very recent history. If so, then one might interpret that President Tokayev believes it necessary to turn this page and leave it among the others in history.

He effectively calls for, if not an end to discussions on historical topics, then a reduction of them. «Excessive digging into the past will bring us more harm than good. No one has the power to change the past.» While it’s hard to disagree with the latter statement, it’s not a reason to avoid studying the past, especially its more complex aspects.

Interestingly, further in his speech, President Tokayev mentioned a seven-volume work on history. Here arises a contradiction or, conversely, clarity, depending on how one views it. Following such logic, this seven-volume work should become a sort of canonical version of our history. In a manner of speaking, it should close the topic.

However, questions arise regarding how this important work will explain the main problematic positions of Kazakh history. Then another question emerges: who will determine what is considered «excessive digging into the past» and what is not? Logically, this would be representatives of the state. Together, the answers to these two questions create a rather challenging situation for historical science. Any canonical work, metaphorically «cast in bronze,» with a prohibition on «digging into the past,» could theoretically create an effect similar to the «Short Course of the History of the CPSU(b).»

President Tokayev also paid significant attention to the history of the Ulus of Jochi (the Golden Horde). «It is important that the perception of the Golden Horde in the world is inseparably linked with Kazakhstan.» From a historical perspective, Kazakhs and Kazakhstan can indeed claim continuity from this state. The first Kazakh khans were Jochids, and the population of the Kazakh Khanate emerged from the left wing of the Ulus of Jochi. Thus, there is no contradiction here.

Indeed, besides us, the Golden Horde also gave rise to the Crimean and Kazan Tatars, Nogais, and nomadic Uzbeks. However, apart from the Tatars, no one claims its heritage on such a state scale. Modern Uzbeks have chosen the state of Timur as their predecessor. The Crimean and Kazan Tatars, as well as the Nogais, do not have their own statehood. Therefore, it is quite logical that Kazakhstan is the only state that can be considered a successor to the Golden Horde.

However, there is also historical politics, which has its own undercurrents and, naturally, rocks. Because neighboring Russia has a completely different historical and ideological attitude towards the Golden Horde. For many understandable reasons, Russia usually has a critical view of this state.

Although in November 2023, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated, «Alexander Nevsky went to the Horde, bowed to the Horde khans. Among other things, to oppose the invasion of the West. The Horde behaved arrogantly, harshly. But they did not touch our language, culture, traditions, which the Western conquerors claimed.» But the context in which this statement appeared is important. At the same time, the Golden Horde is not too popular in Russian historical politics.

In general, the thesis of continuity from the Ulus of Jochi is quite logical from the perspectives of both history and historical politics. This is precisely one of those difficult questions in history that need to be explained and justified. In this regard, it is worth noting President Tokayev’s statement that the 800th anniversary of the Ulus of Jochi «is not a reason for lavish celebrations, but primarily a stimulus for serious research work.» It is understood that such work is more challenging than any event. The criterion of effectiveness here is the content produced, at least to the level that exists in Kazan. This is an important task.

At the same time, we clearly have questions regarding content. In his speech, President Tokayev noted that the proportion of literature in the Kazakh language is increasing in bookstores, with a particular emphasis on translated literature. Undoubtedly, the translations of global bestsellers are very important. However, this does not entirely constitute the development of an intellectual environment. For this, books written by local authors, especially in the Kazakh language, are primarily needed. Moreover, if we are discussing bookstores, it would be logical to also mention the number of books sold to have benchmarks for the development of the environment.

Another point in President Tokayev’s speech was related to libraries. He emphasized their significance and noted that new modern libraries are being built. Here, again, the question of their content arises. For libraries to act as a factor in the development of the intellectual space, it is important that they stimulate the production of local book products, as is the case in developed countries. For example, if they were to purchase two copies each, it would ensure a circulation of several hundred books. With prevailing circulations of 1,000 copies, this is already significant. In any case, libraries are important when there is something to read in them. One can only welcome President Tokayev’s thesis «on the rooting of a high culture of reading in society,» if there is something to read.

The emphasis on conditionally conservative values in their various manifestations was quite indicative in the president’s speech. Such healthy conservatism was observed in relation to religion. Tokayev spoke out against «radically-minded neophytes» and their attempts «to impose alien religious ideals on society,» which constitutes «an overt challenge to our traditional foundations and values.» In this regard, it is understood that any Kazakh authorities usually advocate for Sunni Islam of the Hanafi school and emphasize the Turkic Sufi preacher Khoja Ahmed Yasawi. It’s just that earlier, along with this, Salafists were also actively developing, many of whom were in power. Actually, it is most likely the Salafists that the president called «radically-minded neophytes.»

Furthermore, conservatism was manifested in the thesis about «traditional family values.» In this context, President Tokayev stated, «We cannot and will not be swayed by those who, under the influence of Western and other trends, promote values alien to our culture.» However, as in the case with the Salafists, the president did not directly name whom he had in mind, although everyone guessed. In neighboring Russia, there is an entire law on this matter.

Honestly, healthy conservatism would not hurt when it comes to state symbols. Thank you, of course, for not touching the flag and anthem, but the coat of arms! Why is it necessary to change it at this moment? President Tokayev referred to some activists and their opinion, which is, of course, great. But the argument that it is supposedly too complex does not withstand criticism. After all, it is not for social networks and the youth accustomed to them.

Caring for them, of course, is important, but not so much as to change the coat of arms, even if it looks too fundamental. Then why follow the example of the president of a neighboring country, who not so long ago changed the sun’s rays on the flag of his country from wavy to straight. How important this was for that country remains unclear.

State symbols should not be changed without a special need. As trite as it may sound, the constancy of symbolism is one of the indicators of stability. Moreover, our activists will now propose so many options, recalling the Turkic Khaganate, the same Ulus of Jochi, perhaps something else. In this sense, the current coat of arms is fundamental in a good sense. It looks solid and not at all eclectic.

Of course, the announced program for the modernization of thermal power engineering (55 thermal power plants) and related engineering networks also attracts attention. At the same time, it is planned to build and repair 12,000 kilometers of roads. Such large-scale investments are precisely part of the well-known ASPIR plan to double GDP by 2029, which has raised many questions.

In principle, investments in infrastructure are considered the most effective and relatively non-inflationary way to ensure economic growth. Especially if your country has severely worn-out networks and infrastructure, and also if you do not simply place orders with foreigners, for example, as is the case with the construction of LRT in Astana or the construction of individual road sections in the past. Moreover, if a lot of young people are entering the labor market in your country.

In this regard, one may recall Franklin Roosevelt’s «New Deal» in the United States during the Great Depression. At that time, large-scale road construction and other infrastructure projects were carried out through state and associated private investments. Another example is China, which has achieved impressive economic growth, in part through infrastructure construction.

However, the main question always lies in the means: where will Kazakhstan find the funds for such large-scale projects? It seems that the government should now articulate the specific details of this plan and where it intends to attract resources.

Yet, the idea of the national kurultai was not entirely about infrastructure projects. More attention at this event should be paid to ideological issues, and President Tokayev, at the conclusion of his speech, addressed the most challenging aspect related to our independence.

It is clear that independence comes from somewhere, that is, it once occurred and was from someone. And here, in President Tokayev’s speech, there were two interesting points. «As a nation, as a responsible member of the international community, we must always be ready to defend our national interests, protect the sovereignty and independence of the state. This is especially relevant now, when the world is increasingly appealing to the principle of ‘might makes right’ and allows discussions about, so to speak, second-rate states in terms of sovereignty, destined to be satellites.» Here again, everything looks quite subtly Eastern, but still very transparent. As the Romans said, «sapienti sat,» which translates as «a word to the wise is sufficient.»

At the same time, earlier in the text, he stated that «one cannot constantly look back, be captive to historical grievances.» And this is also clear who he is talking about and what grievances he is referring to, certainly not about the Dzungars. Although, from the perspective of historical politics, the Dzungars are our perpetual lifesaver.

Thus, President Tokayev’s speech was very comprehensive, touching on many aspects of our history and current tasks. Many theses were expressed allegorically, but this is understandable, as the topic is quite sensitive. Let’s see what comes of it.