The metaphor that history moves in a spiral has resurfaced in Kazakhstan, where ongoing debates over electoral reform and information policy are testing the boundaries of the country’s democratic trajectory. Recent official messaging points toward a more managed model of political participation, framed as a necessary response to emerging challenges.

This trajectory was articulated by State Councilor Erlan Karin in his article, “The Politics of Common Sense,” published in the state-run Kazakhstanskaya Pravda. In the piece, Karin reflects on the formation of public values in Kazakhstan, portraying it as an evolutionary process. Simultaneously, Karin references government-led social programs, such as “Law and Order,” “Clean Kazakhstan,” and “Adal Azamat” – a program focused on building character, promoting civic responsibility, and fostering national unity – as instruments of state-directed civic education.

Karin reiterates his previously stated position on the existence of “red lines” in public discourse, sensitive subjects such as interethnic relations, religion, language, and foreign policy. While insisting that these topics should not be off-limits, he calls for “common sense” in how they are discussed.

“When it comes to public stability, the state will not compromise,” he asserts, adding that the government will lawfully oppose any attempts at “destructive information influence and incitement to hatred.”

Karin also highlights what he describes as a new category of problematic actors:

“This spring, I drew attention to a phenomenon known as ‘inforeket,’ in which certain bloggers and activists engage in outright extortion. This practice stems from past policies of appeasement toward disruptive elements, which encouraged the rise of pseudo-public figures, bloggers, and ‘tame oppositionists.’ Now abandoned by their once-powerful patrons and wealthy clients, they continue to seek income using outdated methods.”

In the same article, Karin names a group of experts, deputies, and public figures who contributed input to the new internal policy principles. Several of these individuals are currently advancing proposals to revise aspects of Kazakhstan’s electoral system—particularly the mechanisms for selecting district akims.

Among them is Berik Abdygaliuly, political scientist, historian, and director of the National Museum of Kazakhstan. In a recent podcast, Abdygaliuly argued for reconsidering the model of electing district akims. He noted that while more than 3,000 rural akims and maslikhat deputies have been elected in recent years, the outcomes have been mixed. Voter fatigue is mounting, he said, and the financial costs of repeated campaigns – amounting to hundreds of millions of tenge – have not corresponded with visible improvements in local governance.

His proposal is that district akims should be chosen not by direct popular vote but by maslikhats, the local representative bodies empowered to demand reports, assess performance, express no confidence, and initiate dismissals.

This idea quickly gained support from other commentators participating in public discussions of governance reform. Political analyst Marat Shibutov wrote on his Telegram channel that the electorate is “simply getting tired of elections” after several consecutive voting cycles since 2021. Shibutov supported the idea of “revising or freezing” the election mechanism for district akims as “rational.”

Meanwhile, political scientist Andrey Chebotarev highlighted a recent speech by Deputy Minister of National Economy Bauyrzhan Omarbekov at a Public Chamber session of the Mazhilis, focused on improving local government legislation. Omarbekov reportedly emphasized the mismatch between candidates’ campaign promises and pre-approved district development plans, the lack of accountability mechanisms, and the limited involvement of maslikhats.

Chebotarev, while a proponent of elected local self-government in rural and urban areas, argues that districts, being integral to regional administrations, might be better suited to appointments under the state administration framework. He calls for a clear delineation between state governance and local self-governance, suggesting that electing district akims is not a critical issue. Still, given the growing powers of maslikhats, transferring the authority to elect akims to them is “worthy of official consideration.”

Taken together, these developments suggest the emergence of an increasingly aligned expert discourse – featuring political scientists, sociologists, and economists – aimed at shaping public understanding of governance reforms and lending intellectual support to the state’s evolving policy priorities. Unlike earlier periods, when political conformity was often maintained through direct coercion or patronage, today’s adjustments appear to be advancing through institutional argumentation, procedural refinement, and carefully managed public messaging.

In an era marked by global hybrid conflicts and intensifying disinformation pressures—and with Kazakhstan’s digital public sphere increasingly exposed to external narratives—the government is positioning these reforms as necessary safeguards. The result is a systemic reshaping of political discourse and electoral practice that, to some observers, recalls earlier patterns of managed participation, albeit presented through the language of expertise, stability, and civic rationality.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the publication, its affiliates, or any other organizations mentioned.