Abstract:

While establishing a national identity different from the past Soviet identity has been a principal task for all three countries in South Caucasus, Azerbaijan’s case is especially interesting as the only country among three countries that is classified as “consolidated authoritarian regime” by Freedom House. As significant aspects of politics and everyday life is currently controlled by the government, nation-building in Azerbaijan’s case emerges as an interesting topic to explore how it is vertically (top-to-down) conducted and how the national identity narratives are regulated within the frame of regime loyalty.

In the early independence years, during the reign of the president Abulfaz Elchibey in 1992 ethno-national ideology was dominant. In order to strengthen the Azerbaijani ethnic identity, new textbooks were written, and certain days devoted to the historical events were defined. The ideology was Turkism and returning to Turkic roots was the basis of this new identity. After Elchibey’s overthrow, Heydar Aliyev’s new government focused on strengthening Azerbaijani national identity based on civic ideas. Aliyev’s name is given credit for founding “Azerbaijanism”, a new doctrine and a national identity, different from Turkism.

This study explores the nationhood narratives that define « Azerbaijaniness » institutionalized and promoted through education system in Azerbaijan comparatively in two periods, namely in 1991-2009 and after 2009 when new state curricula were approved. The primary sources for this study are primary education and history textbooks used at schools. Current centralized education system and the use of uniform textbooks in all schools countrywide make the study feasible with easily accessible sources. By using critical discourse analysis, this study tracks the changing language and frequency of certain narratives promoting national identity in the school textbooks. The explored narratives are divided into three categories, namely, the narratives on the origins of the statehood and nation, narratives used for regime legitimization, and narratives to place Nagorno-Karabakh issue in the national identity. The study presents following assumptions:

- Narratives on the origins of the nation has taken a more ethno-nationalist turn after 2009 despite the earlier civic nation discourse.

- The national identity is closely tied to the name of the former president Heydar Aliyev with increased metaphors and expressions to bring the current regime and nation closer and inseparable.

- The narratives after 2009 carry stronger military character than those before.

Validity of these assumptions will be tested by analyzing the content of the selected textbooks and drawing relevant comparisons.

Abstract:

This paper investigates the discursive contestation surrounding World War II remembrance in post-1991 Kazakhstan and its impact on official government narratives. The analysis delves into the nuanced layers of tropes embedded in these narratives, catering to domestic audiences and influencing bilateral relations with Russia. Over time, these tropes have evolved from the Soviet-era triumphalist interpretation to emphasizing wartime losses, the anti-Bolshevik stance of the Turkestan legion, and Kazakhstan's contribution to the World War II victory. Despite these shifts, elements such as Stalin's leadership during WWII, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and the Western allies' relationship with the Soviet Union remain untouched in official narratives. Concurrently, non-official narratives spotlight these untouched aspects, aiming for inclusion in collective remembrance. This research draws from diverse sources, primarily in the Kazakh language, encompassing addresses, speeches, memoirs, surveys, and interviews with contributors to non-official narratives. The paper contributes to the scholarly understanding of the evolving nature of de-Sovietized nationalizing state discourses in Kazakhstan, revealing the existence of competing narratives vying for authoritative status.

Abstract:

The possibility of switching to the Latin script for the Kazakh language has been in discussions among Kazakhstan’s political elites, linguists, and civil society since the 1990s. However, unlike neighbouring Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan as well as Azerbaijan, which all abandoned Cyrillic soon after the dissolution of the Soviet Union for the sake of a new Latin alphabet for their respective titular languages, Latinisation in Kazakhstan was not launched until late 2010s. While propagated by former President Nazarbayev, the Latin alphabet had undergone several iterations. Finally, in 2022 President Tokayev stated that Latinisation should not be rushed and not be a mere mechanical switch.

The great body of literature explored the reasons behind the process of Latinisation as well as its implications on political, social, economic, cultural, and linguistic levels in Kazakhstan. For instance, Kumar et al. (2022) distinguish two major reasons driving Latinisation, which include institutionalism or path dependency and the motivation for modernisation. Yergalieva (2018) argues that official discourse about the modernisation of the Kazakh language is a mere formality, while the genuine reasoning lies with political motivations to de-Russify the Kazakh language as well as in Nazarbayev’s personal interest to oversee the alphabet transition. Finally, Riekkinen et al. (2021) discuss the Latinisation reform and focus on the rationale, legal foundations, and possible impact on the status of the Russian language. They establish that Latinisation exists within several incoherences. For example, it is declared to be simultaneously carried out with the aim of internationalisation and nationalisation. The authors tackle one of the most sensitive issues – the assumption that Latinisation would trigger the social exclusion of Russian and Russian speakers. They posit that Latinisation will not have a direct impact on Russian speakers; rather, globalisation and the increasing popularity of English will impact the role of Russian.

This paper will attempt to analyse the potential implications the transition from the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet can have on minorities in Kazakhstan, which is missing from the discourse. Minority members in Kazakhstan extensively use Russian and Kazakh languages, which are Cyrillic-based. Moreover, the majority of languages of minority communities in Kazakhstan are Cyrillic-based as well. This paper will draw from interviews with minority respondents and secondary sources to analyse the impact the alphabet switch can have on non-titular ethnicities living in Kazakhstan.

Abstract:

This paper examines the key messages of government authorities in Russia and Kazakhstan over the preceding five years (2019 – 2024) concerning shared history of the two states and the reevaluation of the past in each. The analysis particularly uses effects of the Russia-Ukraine war on the statements delivered by the officials. Employing discourse analysis methodology, it investigates whether there have been shifts in the content of these messages over time. Additionally, the study explores the influence of official stances on nation-building processes and historical reassessment within both nations. Drawing on published materials by the presidents of two states, the research assesses the potential impact of historical politics on interstate relations between Russia and Kazakhstan. The analysis delves into the complexities of how governmental narratives shape perceptions of historical events and identities, shedding light on the dynamic interplay between historical discourse and contemporary geopolitical dynamics in the region. Through an interdisciplinary approach integrating political science with insights from history and international relations, this article aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the multifaceted ways in which historical memory and political rhetoric intersect to shape national narratives and influence interactions among neighboring states with shared past.