Abstract

This paper examines the role of civil society actors during periods of destabilization, using the events in Zhanaozen (Kazakhstan, 2011–2012) as an instrumental case study. It represents the final stage of a broader research project and tests a hypothesis derived from an original analytical model developed by the author.

The Zhanaozen case is conceptualized as a “destabilizing event,” operationalized through the official declaration of a state of emergency. This approach allows for the empirical observation of how a political system responds to acute internal shocks. The research draws on a wide range of sources, including official documents, reports of international organizations, media materials, and selected digital content, enabling methodological triangulation and strengthening the reliability of the findings.

The paper is grounded in a conceptual distinction between a “stable state” (the absence of destabilizing events) and “stability” as a system’s capacity to withstand destabilizing pressures. It further develops a typology of civil society actors—systemic, non-systemic, and anti-systemic—based on their relationship with the state. The analysis also identifies two key mechanisms through which civil society may contribute to stabilization: communicative processes of dialogue and compromise (Habermas) and the production and diffusion of values, narratives, and discourses (Gramsci).

Importantly, the role of civil society actors is assessed not only in terms of its stabilizing or destabilizing character, but also in terms of its degree of significance, distinguishing between critical and non-critical forms of influence.

The central hypothesis, tested through a case study approach, argues that the role of civil society varies depending on both the stage of destabilization and the type of actors involved.

The findings contribute to broader debates on state–society relations, the dynamics of political stability, and the role of civil society in hybrid political regimes, offering a nuanced understanding of how different types of actors shape trajectories of destabilization and stabilization.