Popular online writers in Kazakhstan are presenting themselves as public and influential figures. If the priority of the Russian blogs in the last year and a half is the discussion of global issues of foreign policy, the Kazakh segment of the network seems to have chosen a different path – out of the system of geopolitical coordinates, strictly according to the rate of detection and exposing of unjust 'agashkas', bribe-taking officials and bronze top managers of national companies. The way to ensure people's love and the equally obvious problems on the part of the offended and insulted.
One of the most active online writers in Kazakhstan, Galim Baytuk, who became extremely popular in a relatively short period of time, has chosen this road, so now he is one of the most cited online writers of Kazakhstan. Despite the dissatisfaction of specific individuals, officials and the coat tails of those who come to the attention of the online accuser.
What makes this story so interesting for the Russian expert community? Firstly, the technology of accompaniment of some imperious initiatives.
The Nur Otan party (or the United Russia party) convenes a meeting and addresses workers, villagers and creative intelligentsia about the tasks and objectives, and the online writer is right there, he publishes a short disrobing post, supported by relevant documents or photographs. Navalny also began with online disclosures. But it seems that the role of Galim Baytuk is quite different from the usual self-praise and promotion as a fighter for justice. It completely "fits" into the process of forming a new model of state-society relations.
What can be more convincing to an ordinary person? Especially for the active part of the youth, for them reports about fighting corruption are nothing, because they are impersonal and boring. A network is lively and entertaining with access to specific people, which triples the interest. The presidential installations immediately sound completely different.
Another question is how do really serious documents fall into the hands of online writers and do those people who insure the unmaskers even exist? That is, is this, in the fullest sense of the word, a civic initiative or part of s process by the authorities? Let us leave the answer to this question open.
The second moment is most evident in the conflict with the management of Samruk-Kazyn. The online critics of the national company show a willingness to engage in a public debate format all the time. They just pull officials into a studio, which immediately creates a stressful situation for many targets of criticism
This and part of a more general problem – to what extent are our officials in Kazakhstan and Russia ready for a dialogue with representatives of civic society in the public space? Is their competence sufficient to cope with the positions entrusted to them and to respond to very uncomfortable questions about bonuses and "golden parachutes"? Is it worth all the reactions to the criticism being reduced to the remark "He just wants more money!"?
These questions are left open, as Baytuk and his opponents are communicating in different coordinate systems and it is not possible to assess how appropriate one or another position is.
Against the background of the traditional closeness of the representatives of all major national companies in Russia and Kazakhstan and the quite understandable reluctance of our officials to go to any formats of public debate, it seems that, maybe on his own initiative, perhaps on some closed circular instructions, Galim Baytuk poses an important experiment for our social system – whether managerial bureaucracy can become a worthy public opponent for the representatives of the 'information society'.
The only problem is that some of the participants in the experiment are clearly not eager to take part in it. So the prospects of finding common ground and of moving from conflict discussion to normal dialogue remain hazy. It's a pity….
