Higher education expansion in Kazakhstan and regime stability

Abstract

This research will analyze the ideological policy of the political regime of Kazakhstan in the field of higher education, which was supposed to find answers to the research question: why the Kazakhstan government is promoting the expansion of higher education. Thus, through the analysis of educational documents in the higher education system, an attempt will be made to identify the motives of the political regime in promoting the expansion of higher education in Kazakhstan. The study claims that the government of Kazakhstan promotes the expansion of higher education to maintain the regime stability. The Kazakhstan government's motives for promoting the expansion of higher education are based on taking control of a large number of school graduates by admitting them to Higher education institutions. In this way, these students will be socialized into the state’s dominant ideology. Thus, the study will use the Gramscian approach, which will allow us to understand the political purpose of the Kazakh government in expanding higher education. An analysis of official state documents and curricula of higher educational institutions shows that the entire content of youth upbringing programs and compulsory academic disciplines aims to form moral and loyal citizens.

Introduction

Promoting higher education can benefit rulers in legitimizing their power. To maintain power among the people, rulers must implement policies and provide the opportunities that people desire. However, such a policy can also have negative consequences, such as opposition may arise among individuals who do not benefit from politics, or the implementation of a policy may trigger counter-measures that ultimately have a negative impact on support for the regime. In this case, some authors argue that higher education can weaken public support for authoritarian governments and consequently, education leads to the collective mobilization of educated people against authoritarian governments (Barro, 2015; Castelló-Climent, 2008; Glaeser et al., 2007).

The case of the mass expansion of higher education can also be applied to Kazakhstan. Education has been both a driving force and a reflection of such transformations, playing a central role in discussions of a political future associated with Europeanization, democratization, and market-oriented globalization (Chankseliani and Silova, 2018). Former President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev several times mentioned that human capital is the basis of modernization (Nazarbayev, 2014a).

Kazakhstan’s expenditures on education have increased throughout the entire post-Soviet period. In the first 10 years of Kazakhstan’s independence, investment in education was relatively small in absolute terms, but as the country’s economy recovered, the government gradually began investing in education (Hanson and Sokhey, 2020). With the increase in GDP, it became possible to adopt government policy documents and invest more in education. The volume of financing did not fall below 3% of GDP annually and on average, since 1991, it has been 3.8% of GDP (World Bank, 2021).

In order to study at the universities of Kazakhstan, the government annually allocates state educational grants to applicants for free education. Furthermore, the number of educational grants increased annually. For example, in 2020, the number of applicants for the State Educational Grant amounted to more than 80 thousand people, of which 53 thousand Kazakh applicants received the opportunity to study at the expense of the state (Sputnik Kazakhstan, 2020). Before that, in 2018, President N. Nazarbayev instructed the government to allocate another 20,000 of the already 54,000 educational grants (Nazarbayev, 2018).

At first glance, it seems that the government of Kazakhstan is trying to improve human capital and develop the national economy qualitatively. But for a state like Kazakhstan, with a strict authoritarian regime (According to the BTI, Kazakhstan is classified as a country of hard-line autocracy BTI: Kazakhstan, 2022), investment in human capital and an annual increase in student numbers can threaten the regime’s stability. Therefore, the obvious question arises: why the government of Kazakhstan is promoting the expansion of higher education? In this regard, I argue that the government of Kazakhstan is promoting the expansion of higher education to maintain the regime’s stability. The Kazakhstan government’s motives for promoting the expansion of higher education in the country are based on taking control of a large number of school graduates by admitting them to Higher education institutions. In this way, these students will be socialized into the state dominant ideology. Because the authority uses ideological education as a tool to cultivate loyal and law-abiding citizens. In this regard, higher education institutions carry out work on the socialization of students in accordance with the norms, values and beliefs in the interests of the political regime.

According to the argument, this research was developed in several stages. First, the article examines extracurricular activities in the universities of Kazakhstan, which in most cases have a political content. Along with the activities indicated in the curriculum, extracurricular activities remain one of the primary modes of developing student support for the political regime. I find that in Kazakhstan universities, the formation of political loyalty among students was carried out using the documents recommended by the state and model rules in extracurricular activities.

The second mechanism is the state uses compulsory academic disciplines to promote norms and the dominant ideology among students. Therefore, in universities, much attention is paid to the education of students’ patriotic consciousness and civic qualities. This role is conducted by educational modules with an ideological bias, which is mandatory for studying for all students, regardless of their professional orientation.

These arguments will be explained within the framework of Gramsci’s concept, in which Gramsci viewed schools as a tool for the socialization of the dominant culture and the ruling elite (Gramsci, 1971). Gramsci claimed that adherence to the rules of the dominant group is achieved by spreading beliefs, assumptions, and values across social institutions. These institutions carry out the work of socializing people in accordance with the norms, values and beliefs of the dominant social group (Mayo, 1999). Thus, we can understand that education is a political instrument of the ruling group and that its education expansion is a prerequisite for conquering the minds of society.

The research utilized content analysis to identify the ideological policy of the state in the field of higher education. I examine how the state promotes an ideological policy in the interests of the authoritarian regime in Kazakhstan through the Ministry of Education and other educational institutions. Therefore, the focus of the article is the analysis of official documents relating to the ideological education of young people in the country’s universities. This includes state-recommended patriotic student upbringing programs, Regulations, and Model Rules for the Activities used in Kazakhstani universities, as well as the Typical Study Programs (Tipovaya uchebnaya programma) which determines the content, volume and procedure for studying the discipline of the compulsory component. In Typical Study Programs, in addition to professionally oriented courses, there are also General Education Disciplines that are mandatory for all students. An analysis of the programs of higher educational institutions shows that the entire content of General Education Disciplines is aimed at ideological education. The Program clearly outlines the compulsory academic disciplines for all university students, where paramount attention is paid to dissemination ideology.

Therefore, it has become imperative for us to conduct a content analysis of state-recommended patriotic student upbringing programs and Typical Study Programs posted in the public domain on the official websites of government bodies. The rationale for using these data is that these documents are mandatory for all universities in Kazakhstan. Furthermore, these documents indicate the goals and objectives of the academic disciplines and topics taught. Therefore, I believe that compulsory courses reflect the interests of the political regime.

In the research also used official state documents, such as decrees of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, orders of the Ministry of Education and Science, the Law on Education, the Law on Youth Policy, and Strategic plans for the development of youth organizations, the concept of Patriotic education and President’s annual address to the nation. These documents help us identify the political intentions of the regime in the field of Higher education.

Therefore, through content analysis of state-recommended upbringing and educational programs, I found that the political regime in Kazakhstan considers higher education as one of the main spheres of influence on people’s consciousness and a place for broadcasting the dominant ideology and cultivating loyal and obedient citizens.

Literature review

Many scholars have studied education expansion from different angles. Growing bodies of theoretical researches suggest that the correlation between education and democracy is exceptionally high. It is argued that education contributes to the development of democracy, both because it promotes democratic values and leads to prosperity, which is also the cause of political development. Huntington (1991), in his seminal work, pointed out that a more educated population can bring about the democratization of a country. In the third wave of democratization theory, Huntington shows that education predicts a permanent transition from dictatorship to democracy. The most famous version of this argument is modernization theory, popularized by Lipset (1959), which emphasizes the role of education and economic growth in promoting political development and democracy. Moreover, education can help broaden people’s horizons and improve their rational choices. Several authors conducted research analyzing empirical evidence on the impact of education on democracy, confirming that education is a precondition for democracy (Almond and Verba, 1963; Apergis and Payne, 2017; Castelló-Climent, 2008; Glaeser et al., 2007).

Likewise, Carnevale et al. (2020) argue that higher education moderates’ authoritarian preferences and attitudes. They state that higher education encourages students to develop a mindset that resists authoritarianism and enhances their ability to deal with diversity and complexity. Analyzing the survey data, the authors found that people with a higher level of education are less prone to authoritarian preferences and attitudes. Higher education, especially in the liberal arts, plays a vital role in mitigating authoritarian tendencies. Especially, authors believe that subjects such as history, social studies, political science, and gender and ethnic studies can present opportunities for students to learn democratic preferences and values.

The aforementioned empirical studies confirm that education is a decisive factor in the transition to democracy. However, there is a tendency in recent literature to suggest that education can also benefit authoritarian leaders in their policies of regime stability. For instance, to understand the resilience of authoritarianism in China, Yan (2014) asserts that it is necessary to examine one of the institutional mechanisms by which the Chinese government maintains social stability among the country’s 22 million university students. The author argues that the revolutionary party-state of the Maoist regime attempted to moralize society by providing educational, professional, or political opportunities to those who embodied the moral virtues favored by the regime. He tried to explain the politics of mass education in China through the Gramscian approach, where domination and control are central to exercising political power in the institutional environment. Providing empirical evidence that the Chinese Communist Party used various mechanisms to deter student youth from active political action through monitoring and creating incentives and rewards for loyal students. Relying on the party’s monopoly on various social, political, and economic resources, this system is strongly geared towards granting privileges in exchange for political consent.

A similar view is shared by Perry (2017), who contends that the current Chinese state plays a central role in sponsoring higher education institutions according to criteria that directly serve the state interest. The state has been taking proactive and retaliatory measures to steer student sentiment in directions favorable to the Chinese Communist Party’s agenda, such as ideological and political education, which were standard components of the university curriculum. Thus, sophisticated methods of cultural management have enjoyed considerable success. Although it may be possible to use force against opposition or imprison opponents, controlling information received by citizens may be more effective for autocratic leaders. Education might indoctrinate people so that they become more loyal to the regime.

A research study by Lott (1999) assumes that governments use public education and public ownership of the media to manage the information their citizens receive. Countries with totalitarian regimes and significant capital also invest more in state-controlled information. Also, ideology plays a prominent role in the university where authoritarian states deliberately set curricula that reflect state policy. In this way, education can influence ideology and political behavior, sometimes convincing students of the legitimacy of a dictatorial regime. To understand a government’s decision to provide education, it is necessary to consider the various functions that education systems can perform and the main outcomes they can influence. Thus, the hypothesis that education is a prerequisite for democracy is not always correct. Because authoritarian leaders always consider the pros and cons of educational policy and can use this to their advantage.

Despite many theoretical and empirical studies on the role of education in general and especially higher education under various regimes, there is very little research on education and authoritarian regime in Kazakhstan. For example, Hanson and Sokhey (2020) argue that autocrats are most likely to benefit from higher education when the public sector is large and the population is more economically dependent on the state. Specifically, confirming that non-democratic regimes with a sizeable public sector spend more on higher education per student. Authors by examining different variables such as regime durability, the size of the youth population, primary school enrollment, GDP growth, GDP per capita, trade as a percentage of GDP, foreign direct investment, and total government spending as a percentage of GDP find that Kazakhstan government likely invests in higher education to reward and earn the support of those in the middle and upper-middle class, especially youth.

Hanson and Sokhey’s research focuses primarily on investment in education and provides only general assumptions about the incentives for education expansion from the Kazakhstan government. The economic goals of education were considered mainly within the framework of human capital. This includes reports on the acquisition of skills and knowledge to increase the productivity and competitiveness of individuals and states, which will ultimately lead to economic modernization (Tanzharikova, 2012).

At the same time, in pursuit of the economic goals of education, Kazakhstan continued to use education as a tool to define political agendas that revolve around the idea of nation-building and unification (Lee and Bozymbekova, 2020). But until now, scholars have not paid attention to the educational policy of Kazakhstan in terms of promoting ideology in the interests of the ruling elite. Therefore, the policy of mass expansion of higher education in Kazakhstan should also be understood as a politically motivated decision of social control through ideological education.

What ideology is disseminated in Kazakhstan universities?

Before analyzing documents related to higher education in Kazakhstan, we need to understand what kind of dominant ideology was being promoted among the population. Therefore, I will try to give a brief description of the arguments of various scholars on the political ideology of Kazakhstan.

After gaining independence, the authorities of Kazakhstan were unable to create a clearly expressed ideology of consolidating society, as it was in the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the regime tried to consolidate the fragmented society into a coherent whole, offering historical achievements such as independence and economic plans as the goal of Kazakhstan’s future prosperity. But all this has always been associated with the name of Nazarbayev. As Kudaibergenova (2015) explains, even if the regime has not yet created a new national ideology that could compete with the former Soviet instruments of domination, it nevertheless managed to develop a semi-ideological system that fulfils the same functions. Although firmly placing Nazarbayev’s figure at the center of modernizing nationalism as a guarantor of stable and prosperous development has also fueled discussions on charismatic leadership. A similar opinion is shared by Cummings (2007), who argues that, despite the efforts of the country’s ruling elite to create a consolidating ideology, the state ideology remains elusive. Many Kazakh officials have repeatedly insisted that Kazakhstan does not have a state ideology as it did in Soviet times. Therefore, in 2018, the Minister of Information and Communications of Kazakhstan, Dauren Abaev, who is responsible for ideological policy in the country, commented on the issue of state ideological policy. Then the minister noted that many experts abuse the concept of ideology. He believed that ideological politics requires special tools and socio-economic conditions not available in the country. Abaev thinks that peace and harmony in Kazakhstan is the result of ideology. In his opinion, young people are patriotic, which is an ideology (“Regnum” 2018).

Many authors have tried to explain the post-Soviet ideology of Kazakhstan. Boulay and Isaacs (2019) believe that in Kazakhstan, there is a greater emphasis on building the ideology of a self-legitimizing regime through various state-building strategies associated with Nazarbayev personal rule. Other authors believe that the political regime of Kazakhstan, trying to strengthen its legitimacy, is building a nation around the narrative of the “Father of the nation” related to Nazarbayev (Stewart, 2021).

All these authors successfully indicate the state ideology’s principles in Kazakhstan to one degree or another. But we need to understand how the ideological views of the political regime are disseminated among the population. Because for the authoritarian regime, the priority was to maintain power through the education of loyal citizens. Therefore, as a significant active stratum of society, student youth have always worried the ruling elite.

In Kazakhstan, ideology reflects Nazarbayev’s charismatic leadership and is disseminated mainly under the patriotic slogan. Because patriotic education perfectly fulfils the task of spreading ideology in authoritarian countries. Lummis (2016) argues, “Authoritarian patriotism is a resigning of one’s will, right of choice, and need to understand to the authority; its emotional base is gratitude for having been liberated from the burden of democratic responsibility” (37). Authoritarian patriotism demands allegiance to the government’s cause and therefore opposes dissent. Westheimer (2016) gives two manifestations of patriotism, authoritarian and democratic, and distinctive characteristics. He notes that authoritarian patriotism is the central ideology of authoritarian regimes, and characterizes this as unconditional loyalty of citizens to the regime, total support and reflexive adherence to leaders.

The authorities see patriotic education as the primary goal of the political socialization of student youth. Moreover, in the process of patriotic education, students are taught to recognize the regime’s political authority and its leadership. Hence, patriotic education is designed to educate student citizens who support both the nation and the government and can reproduce the worldview of the ruling elite. Koesel (2020) who conducted a comparative content analysis of educational resources in Russia and China, claimed that political and patriotic education is a pre-emptive strategy of authoritarian resilience. In this regard, the following sections of the article argue that the patriotic education of student youth is an imperative goal of the political elite of Kazakhstan to maintain the status quo.

Political extracurricular activities as a tool in building consent

This section argues that extracurricular activities at universities in Kazakhstan are one of the ruling elite’s primary methods of hegemonic education, aimed at cultivating consent and building public support for the regime. Along with the activities specified in the curriculum, extracurricular activities remain one of the main methods of diffuse support for the political regime among students. Through extracurricular activities, the political elite can acquaint a large number of students with the national ideology, support the legitimacy of the regime, and disseminate specific knowledge, attitudes, and behavior that contribute to the preservation of the status-quo. I believe that the stability of the political regime in Kazakhstan depends largely on the creation of favorable beliefs among university students, where political and economic achievements and the positive personality of an authoritarian leader are actively promoted through various extracurricular activities.

An analysis of the content of extracurricular activities in universities provides a clear picture of how the ruling elite is trying to instil loyalty in students through patriotic education. The country pays great attention to the patriotic education of the younger generation, which is studying in universities. For example, in 2006, the President signed a Decree on the State Program of Patriotic Education of Citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan, patriotism is portrayed as one of the essential orienting values associated with the formation of citizens' pride in their country, fostering readiness to fulfil their civic duty and constitutional obligations to protect the interests of the Motherland (Ukaz Prezidenta RK, 2006).

In the main directions of youth policy development in Kazakhstan universities, special attention is paid to patriotic education, tolerance, and obedience to the law. For example, the document on the “Standard Rules for the Activities of Educational Organizations” states that the activities of students are an essential part of the educational practice and are aimed at the formation of patriotism and citizenship (Prikaz Ministra obrazovaniya i nauki RK, 2018). Thus, the document shows that educational work in universities should stimulate students to patriotism. This document, proposed by the state, is considered as the main guideline when planning student activities at every university in Kazakhstan.

Several state officials have repeatedly stated the importance of patriotic education for young people. For example, the Member of Parliament Svetlana Ferho stresses that the educational function is carried out in political socialization, which consists of students' participation in feasible and accessible public and civic events. Consequently, students develop feelings of striving to devote their work, strength, and ability to the prosperity of the Motherland (Ferho, 2013).

Even Nazarbayev has repeatedly promoted patriotism at various official meetings with youth. For example, at one of the official meetings with youth, he gave his idea of the term “Patriot,” which means that young citizens should honor the ideals of independence and continue the baton of the Motherland successes (Nazarbayev 2015). His repeated appeal to youth to unite with state policy and be true patriots of their country, as well as the responsibility of youth for the future of the country, testifies to the intention of the head of state to unite youth with the political regime (Tengrinews, 2020). Thus, educating young people in a patriotic direction makes it possible to cultivate values such as the loyalty of citizens to the political regime and its political course.

To create public support, the political elite tried everywhere to magnify the economic success and correctness of the chosen political path during the Nazarbayev period. Thus, calling on young people to support and continue the established political course. Junisbai and Junisbai (2018) explain that the youth was the main target of the ongoing efforts of the government of Kazakhstan to build the nation and the state. The idea that a qualitatively new generation, free from the remnants of the Soviet past, is being prepared for the country’s leadership is being strongly promoted. In this case, the authors argue that institutions—regime values, policies, and practices—affect the value orientations of young citizens.

The country universities, implementing the tasks of the government to educate students in a patriotic direction, have created their action plans and guidelines based on official state policy. In this case, the “Model of Patriotic Education” can be considered one of many methodological guidelines projecting the state’s ideological trajectory. Following the results of the republican seminar-meeting in October 2010, the “Model” was recommended for implementation in educational institutions of the country by the government. Interestingly, several Members of Parliament were involved in the development of this patriotic education model. As a result, a patriotic teaching model was introduced into the educational process of Karaganda Technical University, covering all academic semesters (Alpysbayeva, 2016).

In the prepared document dedicated to the economic prosperity and historical achievements of independent Kazakhstan, a central role was assigned to the personality of Nazarbayev, who allegedly was the leading reason for all the successes of the independent country. Therefore, in my opinion, the politically oriented discourse of the patriotic Model, where the main emphasis is on the successes of the post-Soviet period, was necessary to legitimize the regime. Magaloni and Kricheli (2010) claim that the link between economic development and the presence of an autocrat has proven sufficient in sustaining authoritarian stability.

In extracurricular activities, a unique role is given to informing students about the annual President Addresses to the people of Kazakhstan. Usually the annual “Addresses” explain the future vector of state policy and past economic achievements of the republic during the period of independence. Therefore, for the leadership of the universities, the most crucial thing in fulfilling the government’s instructions was timely and continuous campaigning and clarification to students of the importance of the President’s annual message. At the same time, the leadership of the university strictly followed all the instructions of the government on the active interpretation of the annual messages of the President (Tipovoy Kompleksnyy Plan..., 2012).

The President’s Address can be considered as a tool for ideological and value construction. The President’s Address is the most important event in Kazakhstan. Every year, the entire public sector listens to the President’s live broadcast in the field. They then organize discussions on the importance of this message to the people of Kazakhstan. In particular, the university administration at this time organized various events to promote the “Addresses.” Professors and government officials invited students to the assembly hall or round tables. Also have been organized flash mobs with the student’s participation, supporting state policy (Radio Azattyk, 2014).

Moreover, the program of student events should include various kinds of government programs that promote Nazarbayev’s personality as the father of the nation, including multiple ideological projects like “Mangilik El” (Eternal country) and “Ruhani Zhangyru” (Spiritual Enlightenment). In 2014, the national idea “Mangilik El” was intended to become the ideological base and foundation of the new Kazakhstani patriotism (Nazarbayev, 2014b).“Mangilik El” was the most utilized project by the Kazakh government in dissemination of the patriotic idea among citizens before announcing the next project “Ruhani Zhangyru.” These ideological projects focused on economic and political achievements during Nazarbayev’s tenure. Such ideological state projects were immediately disseminated among all segments of the population through various state institutions and the media. State organizations presented all presidential speeches and the ideological projects as documents of vital importance for a society for implementation. For example, the State Program for the Development of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2016–2019 sets several priority tasks for the country’s universities. In this document, it is written that it is necessary to strengthen students’ spiritual and moral values under the “Ruhani Zhangyru” program. It should also be noted that this document sets the task of involving all university students in socially useful activities (GPRON, 2016). In this regard, the government’s order on campaigning for the presidential initiatives found an immediate response from the leadership of universities and organized various campaigning events among students. When organizing student events, all universities must draw up a plan under official government policy documents. Therefore, the departments for organizing student events, when drawing up a project, in their activities are guided by the following primary ideological documents such as the Plan of the Nation “100 Concrete Steps,” the National Programs “Mangilik El” and “Ruhani Zhangyru,” as well as the Annual President Addresses (Polozheniye ob organizatsii vospitatel’noy raboty v universitete, 2020).

Thus, at universities in Kazakhstan, student activities are the most common way of spreading values and norms among students in the ruling elite’s interests. Nevertheless, extracurricular activities were not the only mechanism of the state’s ideological policy in the country’s universities. The educational process itself, taking place in the classrooms, played a significant role in forming loyalty to the regime. Therefore, the next section will be devoted to the analysis of the disciplines taught in the universities of Kazakhstan.

Reflecting citizenship in the curriculum

The state formalizes “citizenship” as law-abiding citizens with high moral qualities who support the state and its political course. In this regard, the ruling elite through higher educational institutions fosters civic attributes in young people that cultivate loyalty and obedience to the state and the regime. In Kazakhstan, in the education of students’ civic qualities, much attention is paid to the academic disciplines of universities. In universities, this role is played by special training modules on civic education, in which great attention is paid to the ideological component.

Civic education is a contested concept, and there are many definitions and explanations. There is a substantial body of literature on citizenship education. Some authors believe that civic education contributes to the democratization of society (Biesta, 2011; De Groot and Veugelers, 2015; Gutmann, 1999; Veugelers et al., 2017) and some authors believe that civic education is a tool for non-democratic countries to cultivate loyalty to the state (Kennedy et al., 2013; Li, 2015; Sim, 2005; Wong et al., 2015). For example, Li (2015) argues that different regimes create different types of “good citizens” and different civic education forms. In the first place, civic education is transformed from making active citizens into a tool for strengthening the state’s supremacy following the tradition of history-grounded patriotic education (Dimitrov and Boyadjieva, 2009). Veugelers and De Groot (2019) found it paradoxical that educational policy now focuses so heavily on citizenship education in an era dominated by neoliberal politics. Identity development becomes the target of direct socialization efforts by schools, coordinated by the national government.

In Kazakhstan, сivic education is simply subordinated to ensuring patriotic education. Patriotism required citizens to be responsible for a set of national obligations and duties to accelerate national and social development. Patriotism means love and belonging to culture and history and takes on a set of legal and moral responsibilities. Aysina (2014) defines a person’s citizenship as their high level of Patriotism. “Patriotism is inconceivable without a conscious sense of civic responsibility for the fate of their Motherland. True Patriotism is expressed in a deep awareness of national pride and national dignity through the prism of state interests.” This kind of Patriotism is a politicized patriotism, which emphasize the citizens’ obedience and support to the regime. In his annual “Address,” Nazarbayev emphasized the necessity of providing patriotic education: “Patriotism, norms of morality and ethics, interethnic harmony and tolerance, physical and spiritual development, obedience to the Law. These values must be instilled in all educational institutions, regardless of the form of ownership” (Nazarbayev, 2014a).

The Law “On Education” describes in detail several tasks of the education system to form citizenship qualities: intolerance to any anti-constitutional and antisocial manifestations; education of a person with a civic position, the formation of needs in the socio-political and cultural life of the republic, a conscious attitude to their duties (Ob obrazovanii, 2007). These principles underlying a good citizen are also reflected in other official documents. For example, the “State Program for the Development of Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2011–2020” states that the most crucial task of modernizing the education system is the formation of an intellectual nation, whose representatives have not only competitive knowledge, creative thinking but also high civic and moral principles, a sense of Patriotism and social responsibility (GPRON, 2010). Patriotic oriented citizens desired and proposed by the authoritarian regime, closely linked with the characteristics of the regime and the one who can respond to the needs of the government.

The Law “On Education” stipulates that the content of the educational program of higher education consists of disciplines of three cycles—General Education Disciplines, Basic Disciplines, and Specialised Disciplines (Ob obrazovanii, 2007). Also, the Typical Study Program states that universities are not allowed to reduce the volume of General Education Disciplines. Thus, General Education Disciplines remain compulsory for all university students, regardless of their professional orientation (Tipovyye Uchebnyye Programmy, 2018).

According to the latest “State Compulsory Standard of Higher Education,” the volume of the cycle of General Education Disciplines is 56 academic credits or 1680 academic hours (no more than 23% of the total curriculum). Of these, 51 academic credits or 1530 academic hours were allocated to the disciplines of a compulsory component: Contemporary History of Kazakhstan, Philosophy, Kazakh (Russian) language, Foreign language, Information and communication technologies (in English), Physical culture, and Module of socio-political knowledge: (political science, sociology, cultural studies, and psychology). Each university can use the remaining five credits at its discretion when performing disciplines with a civil-patriotic bias (GOSO, 2018). Let us compare with the previous “State Compulsory Standard of Higher Education,” where the volume of the cycle of General Education Disciplines was only 28 academic credits or 1215 academic hours. It becomes clear that the government gives great attention to the General Education Disciplines (GOSO, 2012).

Upon completing General Education Courses, it was envisaged to form the qualities of a good citizen in students. At the end of the General Education Courses, it was supposed to form the qualities of a good citizen in students. For example, the “Standard” says that after completing the course, students develop the qualities of manifestation of civic position, based on a deep understanding of the patterns and originality of the historical development of Kazakhstan. Be guided by the social, cultural, legal, and ethical norms of the community (GOSO, 2018).

To one degree or another, almost all subjects that consist of the General Education Disciplines are aimed at forming citizenship and patriotism with knowledge of norms and moral values. Therefore, the essential mission of the Module of Socio-Political knowledge is to educate citizens loyal to the state. Disciplines such as Sociology, Political science, Cultural studies, and Psychology are compulsory for all students. The study duration in these subjects is 240 academic hours (8 academic credits). According to the document, the purpose of these courses is to form students’ social and humanitarian outlook in solving the problems of modernizing public consciousness, defined by the state program “Vzglyad v budushcheye” (Look into the future) initiated by Nazarbayev. Upon completing the courses, students should have information about the various stages of development of Kazakhstani society and the social, cultural, legal, and ethical norms (Tipovyye Uchebnyye Programmy, 2018).

An analysis of the Typical Study Programs demonstrates that the entire content of General Education Disciplines is aimed at the formation of moral and obedient citizens. But patriotic education through teaching history requires special attention. Therefore, in the next part, I explore how the history curriculum creates patriotic and loyal citizens to the political regime.

History teaching and making patriots

By teaching the history of Kazakhstan as a compulsory subject for all university students in the country, the authoritarian government seeks to raise the ideological consciousness of students who will support their nation and, at the same time, the political regime. Furthermore, universities’ educational content studies show that the state is trying to instil consent and create obedient students. Thus, higher education institutions pursue a state policy on the socialization of students with the help of educational content.

The last Law, “On Education,” stipulates that the content of the educational program of higher education consists of disciplines of three cycles—General Education Disciplines, Basic Disciplines, and Specialised Disciplines (Ob obrazovanii, 2007). Also, the legislation does not allow a reduction in the volume of General Education Disciplines. Thus, General Education Disciplines remain compulsory for all university students, regardless of their professional orientation.

The volume of the cycle of General Education Disciplines is 56 academic credits, which includes disciplines such as Contemporary History of Kazakhstan and other socio-political courses. Moreover, upon completing the “Contemporary History of Kazakhstan,” students of all specialities must pass the state exam (GOSO, 2018).

Among all the compulsory disciplines, “Contemporary history of Kazakhstan” was especially distinguished by the importance of forming citizenship and patriotism. Which, by design, was ideologically oriented and had a special status with a mandatory state exam. The subject “Contemporary History of Kazakhstan” is described in curriculum structure as a required course for all the first-year students. One of the main tasks of the history course is the formation of civic qualities and patriotism, love for Kazakhstan, respect for state symbols, intolerance to any anti-constitutional and antisocial manifestations (Tipovyye Uchebnyye Programmy, 2018).

Teaching historical disciplines has a long history since the days of the Soviet Union when all university students were required to study the history of the Communist Party as a compulsory discipline. The authorities of the Soviet Union used history teaching as the ideological component of state policy. Gaworek (1977) argues that In the Soviet Union, education was purposive, emphatic, or rigorous. With complete control over the education system, the regime seeks to consolidate its power, legitimize its power, advance its policies, and maintain social spirit and stability.

In post-Soviet period, the political regime continued to consider the history discipline as an ideological tool. In the beginning, the government tried to use history teaching as an instrument of state-building. Thus, textbooks on the history of Kazakhstan cover all historical periods. The subject “History of Kazakhstan” in universities had a pronounced nationalist connotation. Particular attention was paid to the periods of the colonial expansion of Russia and the Soviet Union. Only one final chapter was devoted to independent Kazakhstan, which dealt with current political affairs (Tipovaya Programma Po Istorii Kazakhstana, 2015).

In 2013, the Secretary of State of Kazakhstan, Marat Tazhin, known as the “main developer” of state ideology, held an expanded meeting of the Interdepartmental Working Group on the Study of the National History of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The meeting was attended by representatives of all levels of government and educational institutions (Online.zakon, n. d.). Tazhin emphasized the importance of history teaching for changing public consciousness, which is convenient for the political regime. He also noted that Kazakh historians are faced with expanding the thematic field of research on the issues of contemporary history and scientific understanding of state-building and the role of the personality of the “Leader of the Nation” N. Nazarbayev (El.kz, 2013). In addition to this, Tazhin noted that it is necessary to create a unified state standard for history education in secondary schools and universities (Forbes Kazakhstan, 2013). The speech of M. Tazhin demonstrates the importance of the historical discipline in shaping the consciousness of young people, which will help strengthen students’ loyalty to the political regime.

As a result, a new standard curriculum for the discipline “Contemporary History of Kazakhstan” was introduced, which was prepared by academics of Al-Farabi Kazakh National University (“Tipovaya Uchebnaya Programma ‘Sovremennaya Istoriya Kazakhstana’”, 2018). As expected, since 2016, the “Contemporary History of Kazakhstan” instead of the previous “History of Kazakhstan” began to be taught in all country universities. According to the new program, the history of Kazakhstan should be taught from the beginning of the 20th century to the present day. But the replacement of the old academic discipline with a new one caused great bewilderment among some university professors. Moreover, the professors did not like teaching students about the latest political events and the current regime (Abdirov, 2016).

In terms of content, the curriculum “Contemporary history of Kazakhstan” included 15 topics. This time, more academic hours and as many as nine issues were devoted to the history of independent Kazakhstan. This means that university students in Kazakhstan spend more than half of their academic hours studying the history of the independent period. The main topics are devoted to Kazakhstan’s political and economic achievements under the leadership of Nazarbayev (Tipovyye Uchebnyye Programmy, 2018). After allocating more academic hours to present the historical events of independent Kazakhstan to students, the lessons will naturally be propaganda, praising Nazarbayev and his political, economic and cultural programs.

The special status assigned to this course indicates that political socialization was of great importance to the government. Therefore, patriotic education is closely intertwined with the figure of Nazarbayev and the political regime. The dissemination of ideological norms through educational programs has become an effective tool in the hands of an authoritarian regime. Economic prosperity, political stability, interethnic tolerance, and Nazarbayev’s personality were the main themes of the “Contemporary history of Kazakhstan” course and were designed to help build loyal citizens.

Conclusion

This article aimed to analyze the ideological policy of the political regime of Kazakhstan in the field of higher education, which was supposed to find answers to the research question. The study claims that the government of Kazakhstan promotes the expansion of higher education to maintain the stability of the regime. Furthermore, because the regime uses ideological education to cultivate loyal and law-abiding citizens. In this regard, ideological work is being carried out in higher educational institutions to socialize students in accordance with norms, values ​​and ideas in the interests of the political regime.

The political regime in Kazakhstan considers higher education as one of the main spheres of influence on people’s minds and a place for the transmission of the dominant ideology. Therefore, the political elite in Kazakhstan consider universities as a tool for the ideological education of young people. Content analysis shows that patriotic and civic education is one of the most relevant topics of extracurricular activities and the educational process. Thus, it can be understood that the ruling elite of Kazakhstan is educating young people with a civil-patriotic attitude through a higher education program. The state formalizes patriots as law-abiding citizens with a high moral character who support the political regime. In the education of patriotic and civic qualities of students, much attention is paid to extracurricular activities and academic disciplines. An analysis of official state documents and curricula of higher educational institutions shows that the entire content of youth upbringing programs and general education disciplines aims to form moral and loyal citizens. Official documents on ideological education indicate that the education of citizenship in students is one of the elements of patriotic education. Hence, the patriotic citizens desired and offered by an authoritarian regime are closely related to the characteristics of the ruling elite. These top-down campaigns made patriotism the official ideological policy of the state, and patriotism became the first standard of a good citizen. Therefore, extracurricular activities and academic disciplines on the formation of patriotism remain an integral part of the educational process in all universities in Kazakhstan.