‘Papa’– Nursultan Nazarbayev and the Discourse of Charismatic Leadership and Nation‐Building in Post‐Soviet Kazakhstan

Abstract

Taking a critical perspective on the Weberian concept of charisma this article examines elite and citizen discourse regarding the perceived charismatic leadership and nation‐building achievements of the post‐Soviet president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev. Using a number of ideal type features of charismatic leadership based on the typology developed by Roger Eatwell, the article argues that Nazarbayev's leadership does not fit neatly the concept of charisma. Rather, in this instance, Nazarbayev's perceived charismatic leadership as the father of the Kazakhstani nation, and the single politician capable of meeting the challenges of post‐Soviet nation‐building, is a constructed discursive force projected from above at the elite level, which resonates with public attitudes towards him at the societal level. Charisma represents a discursive mechanism that emphasises President Nazarbayev's centrality to the unity, prosperity, and stability of the nation. This charismatic discourse has aided Nazarbayev in consolidating his authoritarian regime and illustrates the existence of a distinct form of post‐Soviet charisma.

How Do Non-Democratic Regimes Claim Legitimacy? Comparative Insights from Post-Soviet Countries

“…After independence, Nursultan Nazarbayev, called Elbasy (father of the nation), wrote a number of books to promote the national ideology (Ó Beacháin and Kevlihan, 2013). Even though his leadership style does not, according to some scholars (Isaacs, 2010), entirely fit the notion of charisma developed by Weber, Nazarbayev is considered to have been a key factor in leading the country through the post-independence period towards stability and development. In a similar manner, Turkmen nationalism is intimately related to the figure of the first postindependence president, Saparmurat Niyazov, also called Turkmenbashi ("Father of all Turkmen").…”

“…Personalism-based claims may also represent a discursive mechanism that emphasises the ruler's centrality to certain achievements such as the nation's unity, prosperity, and stability (Isaacs, 2010). Personalist legitimacy claims can therefore rely both on the leader's populist charisma and on extraordinary leadership capabilities and expertise (Nelson, 1984).…”

Legitimation and the Party of Power in Kazakhstan

“…iv However, Nazarbayev's charisma seems to be less relevant for the regime's legitimation than is implied in Weber's classic charismatic-authority ideal -type. As noted by Isaacs (2010), Nazarbayev's charisma is of a reflected type, actively constructed by the elites. The main elements of his charismatic leadershiphis superior qualities, his capacity to represent the nation and be its fatherare not inherent in Nazarbayev himself, but are instead a "discursive mechanism" attributed to him by means of an active and continuous discourse (Isaacs, 2010, p. 436).…”

“…The authorities make frequent reference to the president's image as a skilled leader and as "father of the nation and a symbol of unity and stability" (Isaacs, 2011, p. 121). The leader enjoys substantial popularity and is trusted by the majority of Kazakhstanis (Lillis, 2010;IRI, 2011;Isaacs, 2010). iv However, Nazarbayev's charisma seems to be less relevant for the regime's legitimation than is implied in Weber's classic charismatic-authority ideal -type.…”

The Circle of Hydro-Hegemony between riparian states, development policies and borderlands: Evidence from the Talas waterscape (Kyrgyzstan-Kazakhstan)

“…This is done by placing the spotlight on Kazakhstan, a country that discussions of regional water politics have generally overlooked in favour of attention to Uzbekistan (arguably the region's hydrohegemon) and to Tajikistan's and Kyrgyzstan's ambitious hydropower development plans (Menga, 2014). The paper illustrates that the image of Kazakhstan as a mediating force in regional water politics, along with that of President Nursultan Nazarbayev as a benevolent regional leader who managed to bring its country to the chairmanship of the OSCE in 2010 (Isaacs, 2010), does not necessarily illuminate its bilateral water relations with Kyrgyzstan. The paper also reflects on the role of initiatives promoted by non-state actors, such as UNECE, UNESCAP, OSCE, and ADB, to assess the extent to which development actors can actually influence transboundary water politics in the Global South.…”