Civil society in Kazakhstan: defining the framework of trust
Tamara G. Nezhina, Independent Sector; Aigerim R. Ibrayeva, KIMEP
Civil society in Kazakhstan: defining the framework of trust
Proposal for the ISTR 2012 conference
Anheier (2007) argues that current researchers often see global civil society as a part of on-going Western
modernization project, and therefore fail to take account of other civil society traditions, which leads to the stalemate
in generating new knowledge and understanding of global civil society. This Western-centered framework does not
help defining civil society and determine its role in non-Western countries. In this study we search for a true definition
of civil society in the context of post-Soviet countries and in Kazakhstan in particular.
The most common Western definition of civil society is constrained to the space outside the family, the state, and the
market; its most common shape being a conglomerate of nongovernmental organizations of various orientations from
garden clubs to political parties (Salamon, 2002; Dionne,1997; Aksartova, 2006; Roy, 2005; Putnam, 1995).
Our research explains differences in the perception of civil society in the West and in Kazakhstan, where informal civil
society is defined by elaborate interpersonal connections between neighbors, friends, co-workers, and extended
family to improve mutual economic, social, and even political wellbeing. We define these connections as civil rather
than familial, as the assistance is often granted to people outside the family circle, is based on reciprocity, and is
granted on request for help rather than routine family assistance.
To provide empirical evidence of Kazakh people preferences for social agents of assistance we collected relevant
information using qualitative and quantitative methods. First, we conducted elite open-ended interviews with experts
who systematically study and write about Kazakhstan society such as historians, educators, sociologists, government
officials, and media experts. Second, we conducted a survey among several social groups defined in terms of
occupation, socio-economic status, age, and level of education to determine whether general definition of the concept
of civil society in Kazakhstan is similar to the Western definition of civil society and to understand the role of the state
and community groups. Further, we collected from structured questionnaire how respondents perceived the
usefulness of government, community groups, and newly established nongovernmental organizations when the threat
to wellbeing arises. The survey was administered in the period April-September 2008, with an average response rate
of 66 percent.
Overall, only six out of 144 respondents, or about four percent, defined civil society in terms of the Western
framework of understanding. This finding calls attention of researchers to variable definitions of the term “civil society”
under different cultural tradition.
To understand how people in Kazakhstan perceive the effectiveness of service institutions such as government,
community groups, and NGOs in hypothetical situations, we asked respondents to select one of the three institutions
for help: government, community networks, and nongovernmental organizations when the problem emerges. In
response to hypothetical problems of homelessness, 54% of respondents selected government, 49% selected
community networks, while only 5.6% selected NGOs; for food 83% selected community networks, 11% selected
government, and 5.6% selected NGOs; for gender discrimination 48% selected government, 22% selected
community networks, and 22% selected NGOs; for ethnic discrimination near 60% selected government, 19%
selected community network, and 24% selected NGOs; for domestic violence 46.5% selected government,39%
selected community network, and 8% selected NGOs; for “other” problems 27% selected government, 73% selected
community network, and 3.5 percent selected NGOs. From these data we concluded that two institutions were
viewed by Kazakhstan people as more reliable and preferred service providers – state and community network. Very
few respondents would appeal to the NGOs for assistance thus indicating that the institutions of Western civil society
- the NGOs - are beyond the framework of trust for local people. Therefore, people in Kazakhstan define the “good
society” as consisting of two major institutions – the welfare state and the community network.
We conclude our study with the case study that details how community network in Kazakhstan organizes service
delivery and security arrangements.
References:
Aksartova, S. (2006). Why NGOs? How American donors embraced civil society after the Cold War, The International
Journal for Not-For-Profit Law, Vol. 8, # 3, pp.15-21.
Anheier, H. K. (2007). Reflections on The Concept and Measurement of Global Civil Society, Voluntas, vol. 18: 1-15
Dionne, E.J. (1997). Why civil society? Why now? The Brookings Review, 1-6. Retrieved on May 22, 2008 from:
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/1997/fall_civilsociety.aspx
Edwards ,M. (2009). Civil Society. 2nd edition, POLITY.
Putnam, Robert D. (1995). Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy 6 (1): 65–78
Roy, O. (2005). The predicament of ‘civil society’ in Central Asia and the “Greater Middle East’ The Anthony Hyman
Memorial Lecture School of Oriental and African Studies University of London Retrieved on May 6, 2008 from:
http://www.soas.ac.uk/cccac/events/anthonyhyman/25444.pdf
Salamon, L. M. (1994). The rise of the nonprofit sector. Foreign Affairs, 73, 4:109.
Salamon, L. M. (2002), The state of nonprofit America, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.