The Astana Ballet came to Lincoln Center on January 18 and gave New Yorkers a dazzling glimpse of Kazakh grace and artistry – possibly a nebulous notion for many of you, one that may not bring indelible images to mind. The world doesn't have a very strong grasp of Kazakh identity and there's nothing like a ballet to unveil its co-ordinates. One saw the multiple threads of a distinct consciousness, albeit so disparate and multifarious that one senses it may have problems cohering in the contemporary world.
The modernist avant garde pieces with ballerinas or duets in radically scanty outfits etching angsty gestures against stark shadowy settings seemed... a trifle faithless, gestural, inauthentic. You wouldn't know it, so professionally was it done, until you saw the other more historical fragments, those that unfurled a full-cast pageant of ceremonial Silk Road sequences and outfits undulating in choreographed patterns. This, the dancers did with effortless conviction. Similarly, a piece against an amber backdrop of ancient landscapes and thrumming rhythms evoked ancestral stirrings, the Kazakh equivalent of Coleridge's Kubla Khan, voices and motions from a far time yet deeply familiar. The Kazakhs clearly still feel the pulse of their old tribal nomadism and the steppe's vast empty spaces in their blood.
It may seem otiose to probe the cultural arcana of Kazakh ballet in a column normally dedicated to geostrategic matters but it's not for whimsy's sake. The country's President, Nursultan Nazarbayev, has just completed a state visit to the White House. He attended the ballet in New York. He's working hard to put his nation on the map. The ballet shows us what Kazakhs aspire to be, how they see themselves, how they want others to see them. They're certainly not a closed fundamentalist Islamic society – that's one palpable message. They're incubating a higher social and cultural direction than most oil states (much of their revenue comes from oil). But they and Nazarbayev must traverse some highly dodgy minefields before reaching a stable clearing.
When the Soviets collapsed and Kazakhstan gained independence not everyone was pleased. For example, the great former dissident, Alexander Solzhyenitsyn, indulged in several public rants about how the Kazakhs territory rightfully belonged to Russia, had done so for 150 years. Not a few ethnic Russians in Kazakhstan felt the same way about the world's largest landlocked country, the 9th largest in sheer size. Many chose to leave as Kazakhs imposed their own language and identity. With a population of 131 different ethnicities in possibly the world's lowest density per square mile, and one of the highest concentrations of oil and gas – it was and is a challenge to govern securely. Especially if you consider that only %63 are ethnic Kazakhs. No wonder it opted for independence last among all the former Soviet republics. Consider also that some %80 of Kazakhs are Muslims which these days in a Central Asian country with porous borders can prove combustible.
So Nursultan Nazarbayev inherited the portfolio of President from Soviet times. He has retained it unilaterally since then and comes in for a steady stream of abuse from abroad about human rights, corruption, despotism, nepotism and the like. Which is all very well, but where in that neighborhood is the shining example of a Western-style stable democracy for him or his citizens to emulate? The country borders on Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. And when I say borders I mean the size of Western Europe. Ok so there is Kyrgyzstan, a parlaimentary democracy of sorts but one that has bled incessantly from internal strife, ethnic violence, riots, coups, military and police crackdowns and endless disorder. In short, Nazarbayev's achievement of keeping order and stability for nearly twenty years is nothing short of a miracle. In the meantime, he has moved the capital to a more central geographical location and generated considerable wealth and education for the population. Consider again the potential for chaos and bloodshed, most especially arising from powerful or benighted neighboring countries stoking trouble. And if you want to be shorn of your precious democratic ideals in an instant, think about the alternative, namely gamble of elections these days, the kind of populist that gets elected and the consequences even in stable systems. Kyrgyzstan at one point in 2010 begged the Russians to send troops to save the country. Whereas Nazarbayev has steered Kazakhstan safely past all that to the present.
In order to do so he has had to restore a sense of Kazakh identity to cement loyalty to national aspirations while making sure not to offend other ethnics, especially Russians. We all know what Moscow does when former Soviet republics act uppity. Georgia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Ukraine, Crimea, Donbass, nonstop cyberattacks against Baltic countries. Yet Kazakhstan, with no Nato or EU or outside friends, has avoided all that. So, until now, one's best response to all the Western criticism of Nazarbayev's governance has been – spare us the sanctimony. For now, be satisfied with progress, with present peace and prosperity, astonishing under the circumstances. It's easy to be high-minded at muzzled media and imprisoned dissidents but harder to stem the chaos. Be grateful that Moscow hasn't marched in or taken large chunks of territory. That China hasn't been economically heavy-handed. Nazarbayev gave them all reason to uphold his country's stability, the age-old recourse of neutrals. He has made Astana the capital of international peace-talks, most recently on Syria. He forged oil and gas pipelines to China. He gave Moscow added revenues by using Russian pipelines for selling Kazakh fuel. He came to Washington to sign deals with US oil giants for developing the huge Tengiz field reserves, thereby also giving the US a stake in Kazakh prosperity – and hooking an anchor to the lands beyond his country's landlocked equation. The single most functional model to aim for in the wider region is Singapore and Nazarbayev has headed consistently in the right direction.
So, Up to now, Nazarbayev has done well for his fledgling nation. Up to now. But he is close to 80 and there are signs of cracks in the systemic fabric. He has not created an explicit structure for peaceful transition from power. Nobody quite knows who will succeed him and how. Islamic fervor is tangibly growing with members of the nomenklatura attending privileged mosques where both mafia and religion mix. Impartial rule of law remains incomplete and seems to be regressing. Corruption has begun to blight business and bureaucracy and create resentment among the educated classes. Inefficiency in tandem with red-tape have become the norm unless you have clout. Kazakh mafia is now a recognizable term. Where have we seen all this before in the post-Soviet sphere? Pretty much everywhere. Kazakhstan is one country that cannot afford to go there. The President must consolidate his legacy now if he doesn't want his tremendous achievements to slip away to oblivion.
