written by Assylkhan Nurgaliyev

Ph.D. student in Social Policy and Administration at The University of Nottingham

Astana, Kazakhstan, 2011

After twenty years of independence, the Republic of Kazakhstan has reached the point where it is crucial to make a choice about the state’s future development. This choice is extremely important, as it could define the route of Kazakhstani strategy for political and social development and progression for the next 20 years.

Politics was established as a science aiming to structure and classify certain forms of social relations, which consequently reflect the character of social intercourse (Aristotle, in Barker, 2009: 1252a1, p. 7). Therefore, it is interesting to trace how political ideas and social rhetoric have changed in Kazakhstan over the last two decades.

If, at the beginning of independence in the 1990s, there was a sharp increase in political thoughts and perceptions in Kazakhstan because of their newness and attentiveness to the population, then the later years defined their practicality, usefulness and liveability in Kazakh land. There were different views and beliefs concerning favourable ways for the state to develop socially and politically. According to the initiators of the views, their ideas could build a new Kazakh society in a beneficial, efficient and harmonized way. From the ideas of socialism and communism, which people were used to, social thought came to form such political streams as nationalism, patriotism, conservatism and, indeed, liberalism. Simultaneously, other concepts occurred, such as utopianism, utilitarianism, liberal opportunism and physiocracy. These ideas were parts of political and philosophical reasoning, which reappeared as the reconsideration of key thoughts of philosophers such as Aristotle, Rousseau, Marx and Popper. The ideas of these authors were not widely known in Kazakhstan; however, they were presented in the form of short-running movements. It is worth saying here that the model of the development of the new Kazakh state was mainly defined by historical, cultural, geographic and national specifics. Thus, the political construction model that exists in Kazakhstan is the most appropriate form for the current level of development of society.

The greatest minds of humanity, who were curious about the issues of social order – from Aristotle, with his ‘kainonia’, which meant that people need to unite into the political association to reach the ‘eudaimonia’ that was found to be the happy life (Aristotle in Stalley, 2009: 1252a: p.318), to Rousseau, with his ‘collective moral’ society, and Marx, who proposed the ‘society of ideal man’ (Rousseau, 2009: 33, and Marx, in Cohen, 2001: xxiv) – were all searching for a social framework that would become a true and real ‘republica’ and would guarantee the rule of law and the fulfilment of each individual’s potential (Rousseau, 2009: 69, and Aristotle in Barker, 2009: 1252b27: p. 10).

Such aspiration to find the true ‘republica’ was also part of the tradition of the Kazakh people. For instance, there is a legend in Kazakh history that the great poet Asan-kaigy was searching for ‘zheruik’ (a Kazakh version of ‘kainonia’) – the promised land, where social relations and political association of individuals are based on the values of equal rights and freedom and also on the preservation of the moral obligation of citizens towards their society and state. According to the legend, Asan-kaigy visited many countries but could not find the ‘zheruik’ and returned to his native Kazakhstan, where he found the features on which he believed it could be possible to create the most beneficial social framework (Nurmuratov, 2000:129, and Kulsariyeva, 2010:178-9).

Why is it important to discuss the social contract issue? Why did the great minds mentioned above devote their thoughts and texts to searching for a political and institutionalized formula for different ‘eudaimonias’, moral and ideal forms and values for human society?

An answer can be given in relation to events that have taken place in the last few years, for instance, in the Middle East. Despite possible critiques and discussion which the present application could provoke, the following question can still be asked: how could the administration of US President George W. Bush and the NATO coalition army use a radical method and have the support of the local population without proof of Iraq’s possession of nuclear weapons, but could not use the same method for the next border-state, Iran? Remembering the chronology of the events of that period, it could be said that the predictable scenario for Iran was the same as it was for Iraq – a forced change of the state’s political order. However, it did not happen in Iran, as, being an independent state, Iran was able to defend its rule by the power and level of negotiations. What was the secret of such success? It is worth pointing out here that both Iraq and Iran are situated in the same region and have rich natural resources, but simultaneously, they differ in the size and type of their population. Thus, it is known that Iran has a larger population than Iraq and is mainly a mono-national state dominated by one nationality. However, the reason for the withstanding of Iranian people seems to lie in another fact. It is the unity of people living in Iran; it is the social agreement of citizens of this country, who believe in and support their state and the political decisions that the state authorities are making, for instance, about internal and foreign (international) policies. It must be clear that it would be highly difficult and even impossible to dictate to a particular country when the citizens unanimously support their government. The point is not about the blind patriotism of the people but a conscious inner agreement, a ‘general (common) will’, which allows the creation of a ‘body politic’ – a single body with a moral face and constituent. This is why the leader of Iran was confident in his assertions, as his words represented the will of the Iranian population (Rousseau, 2009: 49–55). The result is known: the arguments of the coalition army concerning “liberating” Iran from nuclear evil perished, and it seems that similar wishes concerning Iran are not likely to resurface anymore.

It is interesting to note that in 1762, in his significant work ‘The Social Contract’, Jean-Jacque Rousseau wrote that men would reach the point at which they would have to search for cooperation and coexistence by making mutual decisions; otherwise, humankind itself could perish because of disagreements (Rousseau, 2009: 31). Moreover, as mentioned above, Rousseau named society the ‘single body’, and at the present time of global integration, in the age of post-technological development, when people are becoming mobile in their intercourses, there is growing evidence to suggest that Rousseau’s words apply to us today. It was natural for Rousseau that the ‘body’ would suffer if one of its parts was sick. In relation to society, it could be said that if one group of people has difficulty, then this affects the entire state (ibid). Such a perception of societal relations is particularly relevant to our present situation.

In his work ‘Politics’, Aristotle gave great attention to the current issue, believing in the laws of nature and the power of logic. Aristotle stated that every species in nature has its own logical ‘end’ or final result, which directs its actions towards the continuation of its being by reproduction (Aristotle, in Barker, 2009: 1252a24: p.8). Simultaneously, the political association aims to bring the ‘polis’, where a man could achieve his fulfilment and development of all his potential and reach his goals, at the same time, where the ‘polis’, in accordance with Aristotle, is the final complete and ideal condition for the existence of the latter (Stalley, 2009: 321).

Rousseau stated that the world in future would experience malnutrition or a scarcity of resources, and this notion of the author of ‘The Social Contract’ has become a crucial challenge for contemporary society.

At the beginning of 2011, there were earthquakes, natural catastrophes and poverty in different parts of the world. Moreover, it is vital to mention that because of social inequality and unpredictability, the populations of the Middle Eastern countries have overthrown the state governments, which has caused rises in the prices of oil and other energy resources. This change in prices caused difficulty in international relations and politics. Such circumstances have shown that the world itself has become the ‘body politic’, a single and complex organism. Moreover, the recent tragedy in Japan that spread toxic atomic dust around the world proved once more that a problem which faces one country could not be regarded as its own difficulty or a separate event. At the moment, all states need to formulate a standard ‘contract’ based on relations with each other, which could establish and sustain conditions for the coexistence of and cooperation between all nations.

The world consists of states, and each state consists of individuals. This chain of relations must begin in each ‘body’ in every society.

Aristotle in ‘Politics’, Rousseau in ‘The Social Contract’ and Marx in ‘The Communist Manifesto’ were searching for the formula of social construction, which was the dream for Asan-kaigy and which could make people equal in their rights and opportunities to fulfil their potential and gain a sense of harmony and unity with the society in which they live.

Such an idea may seem utopian or idealistic; however, it is possible, as practical examples of it can be found in daily life. Rousseau was criticized in his own time for his belief in such a possibility by the followers of liberal thinkers such as Hobbes and Locke, who believed that man exists in the “state of nature” or the “state of war”, where each individual seeks only his or her own self-interest and is not concerned about other people. Despite this critique, Rousseau kept arguing for the possibility of building a civil and moral society (Rousseau, 2009: 59).

To support this view, it is interesting to take a look at the case of Cuba. This country was able to withstand the power of the US ideologically without having any considerable economic strength. The secret was simple. If Fidel Castro always kept in mind Rousseau’s ‘Social Contract’ during his revolutionary actions and command of the state and continued to believe in the idea of social agreement (Collier, 2003), then the people of Cuba would still believe and support the course of their state. Therefore, it was impossible to influence and win over such a society by blockades and embargos.

Moreover, the possibility of morally building a strong ‘body politic’ was possible for Rousseau and his followers because of the example set by the interrelations of family members. For instance, when the parent cares about the child, the first does his or her duty, or natural “end”, as suggested by Aristotle, to continue human nature. However, parents’ care is no longer needed when the child grows up and reaches ‘the age of reason’. Even animals let their child live separately in wild nature when they possess the ability and force for self-preservation. A similar situation happens in human families when the child is at an age and has the ability to define his own destiny. However, even children who have gained maturity often prefer to stay with their parents and keep relations tight as they find it more rational and secure. Such an explanation seems logical because it is not the force or intellectual and material possession of the parents that persuades mature children to remain close to their family, but the conscience and the mutual will of both sides, which consequently make it possible to keep the familial relations. Therefore, following this argument, Rousseau asked why such rational familial interrelations could not be transferred to the interrelations between the state and individuals, between society and people, where the state is the parent, and the child is the citizen.

In conclusion, it could be said that the foundation of a social and political model that can satisfy citizens’ expectations should be based on values of morality, equality and freedom. Only such a model of cooperation with an agreed social contract can unite the members of society and keep the contract working. Undoubtedly, the state bureaucracy plays a significant and responsible role. Thus, the social contract is the key to the development of society.

Bibliography

Aristotle (2009). in R.F. Stalley (2009). “Explanatory Notes’, in Barker, E. (eds.) (2009). ‘Politics’, Oxford University Press. NY.

Cohen, G.A. (2001). ‘Karl Marx’s theory of history: a defence’. Princeton University Press. USA.

Collier, T. (2003) ‘Philosopher of the Month’. Retrieved on: 20th of September, 2011 and cited from: http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_jun2003.htm.

Kulsariyeva, A.T. (2010). ‘Idea on independent Kazakhstan – ‘Zheruik’ Kazakhstan. The transition from the Kazakh nation to the Kazakh state. Kazakh State University Press. Almaty, Kazakhstan.

Nurmuratov, C.E. (2000). ‘Origination and development of moral ethics  (social and philosophical analysis)’. From Ph.D. dissertation in philosophy, Kazakh State University Press. Almaty, Kazakhstan.     

Rousseau, J.J. (2009). ‘The Social Contract’. Regnery Publishing Press. Washington D.C., USA.

Stalley, R.F. (2009). (eds). ‘Aristotle Politics’, with the late translation of Ernest Barker (2009) ‘Politics’. Oxford University Press. NY, USA.

P.S. The present article is included in my recently published first book ‘Sphinx: The Nature of doing PhD’ in Part X.

Please visit the following link on this website (the section ‘Book’) for all related information about the publication and purchasing options: https://assylkhannurgaliyev.com/2025/06/12/384/