The general perception of Western analysts and observers is that the nation-states created as a result of the breakup of the Soviet Union all treat the memory of the dark, repressive aspects of the Stalinist regime in public spaces as a symbolic element in the creation of a new post-Soviet identity [Denison, Michael. 2009. “The Art of the Impossible: Political Symbolism, and the Creation of National Identity and Collective Memory in Post-Soviet Turkmenistan.”Europe-Asia Studies61 (7): 1167–1187]. We argue that the government of Kazakhstan employs non-nationalistic discourse in its treatment of Stalinist victims’ commemoration in a variety of forms, through the creation of modern memorial complexes at the sites of horrific Soviet activity (mass burial places, labor camps, and detention centers), purpose-built museum exhibitions, and the commemorative speeches of its president and other officials. Kazakhstan's strategy in commemorating its Soviet past is designed to highlight the inclusiveness of repression on all peoples living in its territory at that time, not just Kazakhs, thereby assisting in bringing together its multinational and multiethnic society. Thus, the official stance treats this discourse as an important symbolic source of shaping the collective memory of the nation, based on “a general civil identity without prioritizing one ethnic group over another — a national unity, founded on the recognition of a common system of values and principles for all citizens” [Shakirova, Svetlana. 2012. “Letters to Nazarbaev: Kazakhstan's Intellectuals Debate National Identity.” February 7. Accessed July 28, 2015.http://postsovietpost.stanford.edu/discussion/letters-nazarbaev-kazakhstans-intellectuals-debate-national-identity].

In the history of soviet Kazakhstan Zhumabai Shayakhmetov (1902-1966) and Dinmukhamed Kunayev (1912-1992) are special ranked due to some reasons. They were the heads of the Kazakh SSR in the Stalinist and post-Stalinist times; their names are associated with achievements in the social-economic development of the republic within the USSR but with the specifics of external ethnocratic administration. On one side, appointment of Zhumabai Shayakhmetov Dinmukhamed Kunayev as the first leaders of the union republic corresponded with some principles of the Leninist nationalities policy (each people has its own leader) and demonstration of the trust to the republican party nomenclature, that was forged in the severe confrontation during the party cleansings since late 1920s and had to internalize the Kremlin administrative formats. But on the other side, their appointment was seen as a restoration of justice by the population of Kazakhstan (and by Kazakhs, mainly) as the right to have an ethnic representative as a leader, not a stranger. In addition, demotion of Z. Shayakhmetov in 1954 and D. Kunayev in 1986 by the decision of the republican congresses by the Moscow scenario was interpreted as a distrust to Kazakhs, deprivation of the right to administer their republic in case of Shayakhmetov and violation of the Leninist principles of nationalities policy (D. Kunayev). The article in aimed to figure out common and specific in evaluation of the reasons behind the demotion of Zhumabai Shayakhmetov and Dinmukhamed Kunayev from the posts first secretary of the Kazakh SR Communist party from the post-colonial analysis view point.

No abstract

Turks-Meskhetians refer to a transnational ethnic group whose identity was formed as result of the group's accommodation practices to the changing external environments necessitated by the critical conditions of survival strategies development and adherence to identities prescribed by external regimes within the frameworks of limited choice. Internal political-administrative imperatives dictated by external geopolitical strategies conditioned the names of territorial units and ethnic groups living there. The Turks Meskhetians have been involved in lengthy, and so far unsuccessful debate on their right of return to their historical homelands, rather than dealing with healings of collective traumas. The paper is aimed to create an integrative scheme of the role of interplay of international, national and ethnic in-grouprelated factors in repatriation and integration decisions' making process.