At the heart of the discussion was President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s call for pragmatic, rational approaches to national memory. He urged historians to move beyond historical grievances and empty nostalgia, focusing instead on truth, academic integrity, and fairness in shaping Kazakhstan’s collective consciousness.
Yet, as historian and MP Erkin Abil noted, implementing this vision requires deep reforms - not just in academia but in state policy, including the field of onomastics.
A Naming System Caught in Bureaucracy and Nepotism
According to Dr. Marat Absemetov, director of the Saken Seifullin Museum and member of Astana’s onomastic commission, the process of naming and renaming places in Kazakhstan has been plagued by favoritism and informal networks. Names have at times been assigned based on personal ties, regional loyalties, or clan affiliations rather than historical merit or public interest.
This leads to bizarre outcomes: streets named after obscure local figures of dubious legacy, while deserving national heroes remain unrecognized. Absemetov highlights the case of Rasul Yesetov, a native of Turkistan, Hero of the Soviet Union and participant in the 1945 Victory Parade. Despite years of petitions from citizens, local authorities have failed to name a street after him - symbolizing bureaucratic paralysis and neglect.
This contradiction is especially poignant given President Tokayev’s own words: at a recent Assembly of People of Kazakhstan session, he unequivocally supported renaming streets to honor unsung WWII heroes, emphasizing the moral obligation to preserve their memory.
The International Parallel: When Naming Becomes Political
Kazakhstan is not alone in facing politicized or bureaucratized onomastics. Around the world, naming practices have been entangled with corruption, power plays, and identity politics:
-
In India, renaming cities and streets - such as Bombay to Mumbai or Allahabad to Prayagraj - has sparked accusations of political agenda-setting and erasure of multicultural heritage.
-
In Russia, the post-Soviet period saw fierce debates over restoring pre-revolutionary names (like St. Petersburg), while others argued for preserving Soviet-era names, revealing deep ideological rifts.
-
In South Africa, the renaming of apartheid-era streets and towns became both a necessary act of redress and a bureaucratic minefield, sometimes leading to protracted legal challenges and political disputes.
These cases highlight a universal dilemma: naming is never neutral. It reflects power, history, and identity—and when left to opaque bureaucracies or corrupt systems, it risks undermining public trust and historical truth.
Toward Transparent and Just Onomastics
The Astana meeting underscored an urgent need to de-bureaucratize and professionalize onomastic policy in Kazakhstan:
✅ Simplify and clarify the approval process
✅ Prioritize public input and historical expertise
✅ Establish safeguards against nepotism and favoritism
Meanwhile, cultural institutions like the National Center for Manuscripts and Rare Books face their own challenges. Director Zhandos Boldykov raised concerns about Kazakhstan’s fragile manuscript heritage, much of which is dispersed abroad or poorly preserved. He called for an integrated effort to recover, restore, and centralize historical manuscripts, further reinforcing the nation’s cultural foundations.
A Call for Action
Kazakhstan’s struggle with onomastics is more than a technical administrative issue—it is a question of how a nation remembers, honors, and tells its story. Bureaucracy and nepotism have no place in this process. If names are to inspire, educate, and unite, they must be chosen with integrity, transparency, and respect for history.
As Kazakhstan navigates its path toward a mature national identity, reforming the politics of naming is not just desirable - it’s essential.
No comments:
Post a Comment