What Does It Mean to Be a Political Scientist in a Transitional Society? Reflections from Kazakhstan
| DOI | 10.1177/1478929918771454 |
| Date | 01 May 2019 |
| Published date | 01 May 2019 |
| Author | Maxat Kassen |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2018
Article
Political Studies Review
2019, Vol. 17(2) 175 –195
What Does It Mean to
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Be a Political Scientist in
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929918771454
DOI: 10.1177/1478929918771454
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
a Transitional Society?
Reflections from Kazakhstan
Maxat Kassen
Abstract
As a young discipline, political science in Kazakhstan could be regarded a poster child of collective
intellectual offspring that reflects well all political and socioeconomic transformations that an
emerging community of political scientists has had to go through for the last three decades to thrive
and promote the field. In this regard, the key purpose of the article is to share an interesting insightful
story of developments in the discipline in this transitional nation. The research is mostly based on a
retrospective analysis of key periods in introducing new agendas in university curricula and review
of the latest trends, practices, and challenges in research and classroom from the perspective of
professional communities in the field. This inherently ethnographic narrative, which is based on the
analysis of rich empirical data, could be interesting for researchers who seek to understand the
development of political science as a liberating phenomenon in a typical transitional context.
Keywords
political science, Kazakhstan, transitional society, trends, challenges
Accepted: 21 March 2018
Introduction
Kazakhstan, a post-soviet nation in Central Asia, is a typical emerging and transitional
society where many aspects of public life, whether it is in economy, infrastructure, educa-
tion, or collective mind-set, are undergoing dramatic transformations. Learning and
adapting are keywords here that would better define the process of such rapid changes.
Whether it is in building market economy, updating old post-communist infrastructure,
changing educational programs and syllabi in universities and colleges, or transforming
post-totalitarian public mentality, all reforms are based on efforts to adopt the best prac-
tices in the field from the rest of the world, mostly Western countries. In this respect, the
emerging school of political science in Kazakhstan could be regarded as a poster child
which development reflects well all such trends and changes in public life.
Political Science, Eurasian Humanities Institute, Astana, Kazakhstan
Corresponding author:
Maxat Kassen, Political Science, Eurasian Humanities Institute, Zhumabayev ave 4, 010000 Astana, Kazakhstan.
Email: maka.mca2@gmail.com
176
Political Studies Review 17(2)
Although political science as a discipline is a relatively young field of study in research
and classroom in Kazakhstan, the history of political thought could be traced back into
centuries. The first Kazakh philosophers, for example, Al-Farabi (also known in Western
literature as Alpharabius), Yusuf Balasagun, Mahmud Kashgari, Abay Kunanbaev, Shakarim
Kudaiberdyuly, Akhmet Baitursynov, Alikhan Bukeikhanov, and many others, wrote exten-
sively on political topics and reflections in their political treatises and philosophical works.
During the soviet time, when Kazakhstan was part of the USSR, political science was
regarded as a dangerous bourgeoisie or pro-capitalist discipline that could objectively chal-
lenge the legitimacy and fundamental pillars of the totalitarian regime existing at that time
and officially declared as a quasi science. It was replaced instead by political economy or
politekonomika in the best traditions of communism as a soviet alternative to the pro-capi-
talist discipline, which key purpose was to propagate ideals of Marxism, Leninism, and
public values of centrally planned socialist economy at home and abroad. As a tool of the
communist propaganda machine, it was quite an elite discipline and only a limited number
of specialists were allowed to do research and teaching on political topics, mostly in closed
party schools or specialized research centers (Brown, 1986; Pye, 1990).
Like in other parts of the Soviet Union, the academic and public interest to political
science was revived in Kazakhstan during the Perestroika period between mid-1980s and
early 1990s, which was reflected in dramatic political and socioeconomic changes and
overall liberation processes in various dimensions of public life. Journalistic and aca-
demic communities were all affected by this growing liberal ideology. It also explains the
popularity of liberation movements in classroom and teaching at that time, which eventu-
ally led to the formation of such new phenomena as a soviet school of political science as
a discipline that was officially recognized by government (Almond, 1990). In this respect,
the translations of classic works by various Western political philosophers provided a
certain initial knowledge base for the emerging community of political scientists in
Kazakhstan to update their syllabi and teaching methodologies.
For almost three decades of development as an officially recognized discipline, politi-
cal science in this transitional society has experienced dramatic changes in methodology
and classroom, being affected by numerous efforts of domestic and foreign stakeholders
to institutionalize the field and establish an independent research school that would pro-
mote own national agendas in teaching and research. In this respect, the author of the
article thinks that it is time to share an interesting story of political science and its devel-
opment as an emerging discipline in Kazakhstan with a global academic community of
political scientists. It is especially important since, with only one exception (Juza, 2016),
there is virtually no academic work in English that would introduce the emerging school
of Kazakh political science, its achievements and roadblocks in its evolutionary develop-
ment for the last three decades to a much wider global academic community in the field.
Methodology
The research presented as an intrinsically ethnographic narrative is based on a retrospec-
tive analysis of the most important periods in the development of political science as an
emerging discipline. In this regard, the phenomenon is analyzed through the prism of
changes and reforms that the field has gone through during the last three decades of
development in, respectively, teaching, research, and administration. A local community
of political scientists in various universities and research centers provided a rich empiri-
cal basis to conduct the investigation. In general, the review of key historical milestones
Kassen
177
and current situation in research and teaching in Kazakhstan was helpful in locating key
challenges that exist in related academic communities.
Theoretical Background
Probably, one of the most influential works that analyzed explicitly the implications of the
country’s background on the development of its political science was a journal article by
Eisfeld and Pal (2010a) titled “Political science in Central-East Europe and the impact of
politics: factors of diversity, forces of convergence.” This intrinsically cross-country study
researches direct implications of diverse political and socioeconomic factors in the develop-
ment of political science not only as a discipline but more as a potential platform to boost
professional networking and, more importantly, a debatable factor of democratization in
many post-totalitarian societies with varying results of such transformation. In this respect,
this work provided an initial conceptual foundation to complement and confirm key find-
ings of the research, resorting to an interesting case of Kazakh political science. The three
decades of development in the field and a diverse community of political scientists who
work not only in universities and colleges but also in various research centers and think
tanks provided a rich empirical basis to research the case in closer detail.
In addition, under their editorship, a group of scholars from a number of Central and
Eastern European universities published their chapters in the edited collection titled
Political Science in Central-East Europe: Diversity and Convergence (Eisfeld and Pal,
2010b). In this respect, the collective venue included individual researches on the topic
from the context of more than 19 countries in the region, which are all inherently dedi-
cated to the study of truly rapid developments in the field for the last three decades,
namely, since the moment the iron curtain was lifted in the region. It was especially true
in regard to the Renaissance of political institutions and related research and classroom
activity in the field in an intrinsically Westernized manner. However, as indicated by
these scholars in almost all cases, not always and not everywhere in the region, such
enthusiasm and eternal thrive of political science and its professional community to do
good have resulted in the generation of public value, especially in boosting true democ-
ratization processes in politics or meaningful increase in knowledge and scientific input
in research. This allowed Eisfeld and Pal to point out to the existence of political science
in the shadow of three types of democracies in the region. As it turned out, these political
frameworks have directly shaped the development trajectories of the discipline as a highly
context dependent...
To continue reading
Request your trial