In a country where language and identity are tightly intertwined, the naming of streets, towns, and even companies is more than a formality - it’s a matter of cultural policy. Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has once again raised concerns over the state of the nation’s onomastics, calling for greater order, professionalism, and national
coordination.
At a recent meeting of the National Kurultai, Tokayev criticized the disorderly approach to renaming geographic and institutional objects, pointing out cases where names were assigned based on kinship, favoritism, or regional bias. His proposed solution? A centralized system that would standardize and supervise the process more effectively.
But what exactly is going wrong - and how can Kazakhstan move forward?
🧭 Local Enthusiasm, National Challenges
Dr. Kuat Saparov, a seasoned geographer and member of the Union of Journalists, has seen the evolution of Kazakh onomastics over the past 30 years. He acknowledges clear progress but points out serious structural flaws. “There are deputies in the local onomastic commissions - but not enough experts,” he says.
Saparov’s fieldwork in Pavlodar and East Kazakhstan reveals that many Soviet- and Tsarist-era names still dominate the landscape, despite the existence of authentic Kazakh alternatives documented in historical sources.
In Pavlodar, only 120 settlements have been given Kazakh names in the entire post-independence period. Over 100 more await renaming, and the numbers are even higher in East Kazakhstan. But without historians, geographers, and trained onomasticians on these commissions, progress is stalled.
Saparov also criticized the tendency to prioritize local elites from specific regions (e.g., Bayanaul) while ignoring other historical figures of national or regional importance.
⚖️ Naming Must Be Justified, Not Politicized
“A name is not just a label - it must be grounded in scientific justification, not local politics,” says Saparov.
He stresses the need to avoid assigning names based on nepotism or local pride, calling instead for broader, historically-informed criteria. For instance, rather than naming a village after a little-known local relative, commissions could opt for names based on natural geography, landmarks, or traditional place names such as Shymyldyk, Qosaral, or Qayyndy.
🏙️ The Problem of Private Naming
Dr. Bekzhan Abdualiuly, a linguist at Xi’an International University (China) and former member of Kazakhstan’s national onomastic commission, brings attention to a different but equally pressing issue: naming in the private sector.
There is currently no regulatory mechanism governing the naming of private entities like businesses (TООs), leaving room for chaos and linguistic imbalance. “In Astana alone, of over 8,500 private companies, only 1,389 have names in Kazakh,” he notes. He argues for the establishment of a legal framework to manage how private and commercial names are assigned - especially in a country that’s seeking to promote its linguistic identity in the public space.
🏛️ Toward a Centralized Model
Both experts welcome the president’s proposal for centralized onomastic governance. Abdualiuly sees it as a way to move beyond parochialism and establish criteria of national relevance.
He also cites the Ministry of Culture’s new list of historically significant personalities, recommended for public naming, as a step in the right direction. It helps strike a balance between honoring local heroes and ensuring names reflect national values and unity.
📚 What Needs to Be Done?
Abdualiuly proposes a two-pronged strategy:
-
Form expert commissions to evaluate proposals and conduct historical-linguistic assessments.
-
Strengthen local bodies, increasing their transparency and public trust.
He also calls for the integration of onomastics into the education system, helping younger generations understand the cultural and historical value embedded in place names. “If children grow up not knowing who the street was named after, what’s the point?” he asks.
🌱 Conclusion: Onomastics as a National Dialogue
Naming is not just a bureaucratic act - it’s an act of collective memory, cultural vision, and national identity-building. Kazakhstan’s efforts to reform its onomastic landscape reflect deeper debates about history, language, and unity in a multiethnic society.
The path ahead will require more than renaming - it will require listening, educating, and collaborating between scholars, officials, and communities.
As Abdualiuly wisely puts it: “Mistakes will happen. That’s normal. What matters is staying on course - and working together.”
