Interview by Anna Vlasova, exclusively for Vestnik Kavkaza
The first session of the Club of Young Eurasian Politologists has been concluded at the National Academic Library in Astana. Young political analysts, historians, journalists, sociologists from Kazakhstan, Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan exchanged opinions about the development of modern socio-cultural, economic, humanitarian processes, tried to find common approaches to overcoming the challenges CIS countries face. Eduard Poletayev, an attendee of the Club, a political analyst, has expressed his vision of politologists’ work in post Soviet space in an interview to Vestnik Kavkaza.
- How would you evaluate the state of modern Kazakhstani politological science?
- I must admit that it has a great positive difference on the background of neighbours in Central Asia. In some countries, we do not even know a single person of such specialization. Maybe there are some, but they work in a closed regime. Kazakhstan is peculiar for “soloers,” in other words, politologists with a certain charisma and leaders of public opinion.
In particular, one of the ratings of leaders in August showed that three out of 10 people belonged to the specialization, which was quite peculiar for practical politology, as adapted and needed in Kazakhstan. In this aspect, I see that political analysts with their experience and evaluations often overshadow people of other specializations that could have been giving public comments on certain events. Such as historians, geographers etc. In this aspect, everything is great. I see a good tendency.
Another story is that some serious, fundamental research belonging to the segment of traditional, classical science is sadly scarce. They are either unpopular monographs published with limited copies and unknown to many, including myself, one who reads such books, or group publications dedicated to such phenomena as terrorism, problems of national security etc.
Such materials often contain borrowings from other sources (Russian, Western) and here, let’s say, we saw no new Francis Fukuyama or Zbigniew Brzezinski, no other titled politologist who would make a serious “solo” in science.
The problem here is also about the way a country perceives politology and its practical value. It is often perceived as a need to explain certain events in the form of a short analytical comment or as the need to write documents of an applied nature, such as analytical notes for a situation, for forecasts etc. Here, I suppose, politologists have not fully explained their role in society, and society does not always have adequate requests for people of this science.
We are often perceived as astrologers and are often asked to tell the future, which is not always appropriate and not always possible in science. Because the science is young, it is at the crossing of three sciences: jurisprudence, history and philosophy. The problem is not just in Kazakhstani politology, it is in the attitude towards the science all over the world, in other countries.
It is young, it is developing, it has not become cold-hearted, classical, unsusceptible to changes, like other natural and social sciences. I think that it is too early for diagnosing, it is more like a timely, situational diagnosis that can change at any time. One of my colleagues just needs to throw in a new idea, write a good book and an evaluation will change dramatically.
- Do you consider yourself a politologist?
- I have education as a politologist, I have the right to be called one, I graduated from the institute cum laude. Another problem is that we have many politologists who are not politologists by education. It is not bad, it is just that a politologist is more of a social occupation than specialization.
We have historians, geographers and people of other professions being politologists. It is good, they bring a new stream and use the knowledge of their specialization gained in higher education centers that politologists were not given. I remember my academic program and, let’s be honest, the program was formed in my eyes because we were some of the first politologists, and no one knew what subjects should be included in the education program.
I, for instance, consider the lack of knowledge of geography (political, physical, because we live in an oil-rich state with an enormous number of fields) at the university a big flaw. We can see in practice today that academic programs need correcting to fill them with the knowledge needed in the workplace.
In addition, humanitarian sciences presuppose their contiguous use. Someone orientates themselves well toward historical intricacies, someone knows the biographies of our functionaries, someone is skilled in geography, I mainly work with journalistic projects and I understand how important it is to give certain information. It all enriches the science, I only welcome that. Most importantly, people should not just be called politologists, they should actually contribute something to the science.
- Are there prospects for the formation of a common Eurasian school of politology or maybe one already exists?
- I think that there are already prerequisites for that. We are all participants in the formation of the school, because the Eurasian problem is not just a problem of the formation and development of the Eurasian Economic Union. It concerns Eurasianism as a world perception, it concerns contacts between colleagues, it concerns the language of contacts, the Russian language.
We are all communicating, visiting each other, conferences, inviting each other, holding and giving interviews to a certain extent. In this aspect, the Eurasian school has not been given a name, but it exists and there are people in it.
Moreover, we see that problems are appearing. Now we can talk about the link with the Eurasian Union due to boundary contacts and forums held, where experts communicate at different events, which is a very big advantage.
Another problem is that there was a serious, in my opinion, time gap in the 1990s – early 2000s, when, as a result of the financial situation, it was impossible to organize certain events or most experts were attending events organized by foreign funds. I know a lot of people who have never been to Moscow but visited Paris, London, Berlin. I think that we should invite Kazakhstani experts to Moscow, other Russian cities more often to contact colleagues. Otherwise, they will be invited by other countries.
- What do you think is the cause of interest in hosting such Clubs and Schools in Kazakhstan, how extensive are the scientific contacts of Kazakhstani experts with colleagues from other countries?
- The contacts got up and running within the framework of two dimensions: they are either contacts of concrete experts that worked in some common projects, were doing some work, or contacts between organizations as powerful as the Institute for Strategic Studies, which many guests often visit, it is quite famous among similar organizations.
Moreover, contacts in the science sector are easily made, such events are daily bread for experts, their job, their life. I see no problems here.
What problems do I see? First of all, there are certain problems with the language. Not all experts speak foreign languages fluently and this in turn complicates contacts with colleagues from faraway countries that do not speak Russian.
The second problem is a problem of a financial nature. It is impossible to react to a situation quickly due to the complicated system of foreign travel according to a premeditated plan. Sometimes you need an operative contact, a visit to evaluate the situation from the inside. There are many challenges (the Ukrainian challenge being one of them and others) that needed a proper expert evaluation, but it is all a matter of financial and time resources. Here, we have problem of money. Organizations supporting political science need to pay more attention to strengthening contacts, because internet communication and thinking on the couch are not enough.
We need to feel with our own eyes and look through a certain event, situation. It does not necessarily have to be a conflict region. There are many requests to evaluate the work of the Eurasian Union. It would be nice, for example, if experts could adequately evaluate their closest partner of the EaEU.
Russia is quite a big country, Moscow does not make impressions about Russia as a whole. Contacts need to be more regular, it would be nice for Russian regions to join it.
Russia has quite firm regional political schools – in Perm, Yekaterinburg, Barnaul, Novosibirsk – but we do not know many of our colleagues ther and do not communicate with them. I assume that we have no interregional cooperation, but it is going on at a very high level (it is usually business delegations and heads of state). The expert element is not as big as wanted. I think our Russian colleagues should be invited to Kazakhstani regions more often, because Astana and Almaty do not show everything we can see.
Assumes Eduard PoletayevInterview by Anna Vlasova, exclusively for Vestnik KavkazaThe first session of the Club of Young Eurasian Politologists has been concluded at the National Academic Library in Astana. Young political analysts, historians, journalists, sociologists from Kazakhstan, Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan exchanged opinions about the development of modern socio-cultural, economic, humanitarian processes, tried to find common approaches to overcoming the challenges CIS countries face. Eduard Poletayev, an attendee of the Club, a political analyst, has expressed his vision of politologists’ work in post Soviet space in an interview to Vestnik Kavkaza.- How would you evaluate the state of modern Kazakhstani politological science?- I must admit that it has a great positive difference on the background of neighbours in Central Asia. In some countries, we do not even know a single person of such specialization. Maybe there are some, but they work in a closed regime. Kazakhstan is peculiar for “soloers,” in other words, politologists with a certain charisma and leaders of public opinion.In particular, one of the ratings of leaders in August showed that three out of 10 people belonged to the specialization, which was quite peculiar for practical politology, as adapted and needed in Kazakhstan. In this aspect, I see that political analysts with their experience and evaluations often overshadow people of other specializations that could have been giving public comments on certain events. Such as historians, geographers etc. In this aspect, everything is great. I see a good tendency.Another story is that some serious, fundamental research belonging to the segment of traditional, classical science is sadly scarce. They are either unpopular monographs published with limited copies and unknown to many, including myself, one who reads such books, or group publications dedicated to such phenomena as terrorism, problems of national security etc.Such materials often contain borrowings from other sources (Russian, Western) and here, let’s say, we saw no new Francis Fukuyama or Zbigniew Brzezinski, no other titled politologist who would make a serious “solo” in science.The problem here is also about the way a country perceives politology and its practical value. It is often perceived as a need to explain certain events in the form of a short analytical comment or as the need to write documents of an applied nature, such as analytical notes for a situation, for forecasts etc. Here, I suppose, politologists have not fully explained their role in society, and society does not always have adequate requests for people of this science.We are often perceived as astrologers and are often asked to tell the future, which is not always appropriate and not always possible in science. Because the science is young, it is at the crossing of three sciences: jurisprudence, history and philosophy. The problem is not just in Kazakhstani politology, it is in the attitude towards the science all over the world, in other countries.It is young, it is developing, it has not become cold-hearted, classical, unsusceptible to changes, like other natural and social sciences. I think that it is too early for diagnosing, it is more like a timely, situational diagnosis that can change at any time. One of my colleagues just needs to throw in a new idea, write a good book and an evaluation will change dramatically.- Do you consider yourself a politologist?- I have education as a politologist, I have the right to be called one, I graduated from the institute cum laude. Another problem is that we have many politologists who are not politologists by education. It is not bad, it is just that a politologist is more of a social occupation than specialization.We have historians, geographers and people of other professions being politologists. It is good, they bring a new stream and use the knowledge of their specialization gained in higher education centers that politologists were not given. I remember my academic program and, let’s be honest, the program was formed in my eyes because we were some of the first politologists, and no one knew what subjects should be included in the education program.I, for instance, consider the lack of knowledge of geography (political, physical, because we live in an oil-rich state with an enormous number of fields) at the university a big flaw. We can see in practice today that academic programs need correcting to fill them with the knowledge needed in the workplace.In addition, humanitarian sciences presuppose their contiguous use. Someone orientates themselves well toward historical intricacies, someone knows the biographies of our functionaries, someone is skilled in geography, I mainly work with journalistic projects and I understand how important it is to give certain information. It all enriches the science, I only welcome that. Most importantly, people should not just be called politologists, they should actually contribute something to the science.- Are there prospects for the formation of a common Eurasian school of politology or maybe one already exists?- I think that there are already prerequisites for that. We are all participants in the formation of the school, because the Eurasian problem is not just a problem of the formation and development of the Eurasian Economic Union. It concerns Eurasianism as a world perception, it concerns contacts between colleagues, it concerns the language of contacts, the Russian language.We are all communicating, visiting each other, conferences, inviting each other, holding and giving interviews to a certain extent. In this aspect, the Eurasian school has not been given a name, but it exists and there are people in it.Moreover, we see that problems are appearing. Now we can talk about the link with the Eurasian Union due to boundary contacts and forums held, where experts communicate at different events, which is a very big advantage.Another problem is that there was a serious, in my opinion, time gap in the 1990s – early 2000s, when, as a result of the financial situation, it was impossible to organize certain events or most experts were attending events organized by foreign funds. I know a lot of people who have never been to Moscow but visited Paris, London, Berlin. I think that we should invite Kazakhstani experts to Moscow, other Russian cities more often to contact colleagues. Otherwise, they will be invited by other countries.- What do you think is the cause of interest in hosting such Clubs and Schools in Kazakhstan, how extensive are the scientific contacts of Kazakhstani experts with colleagues from other countries?- The contacts got up and running within the framework of two dimensions: they are either contacts of concrete experts that worked in some common projects, were doing some work, or contacts between organizations as powerful as the Institute for Strategic Studies, which many guests often visit, it is quite famous among similar organizations.Moreover, contacts in the science sector are easily made, such events are daily bread for experts, their job, their life. I see no problems here.What problems do I see? First of all, there are certain problems with the language. Not all experts speak foreign languages fluently and this in turn complicates contacts with colleagues from faraway countries that do not speak Russian.The second problem is a problem of a financial nature. It is impossible to react to a situation quickly due to the complicated system of foreign travel according to a premeditated plan. Sometimes you need an operative contact, a visit to evaluate the situation from the inside. There are many challenges (the Ukrainian challenge being one of them and others) that needed a proper expert evaluation, but it is all a matter of financial and time resources. Here, we have problem of money. Organizations supporting political science need to pay more attention to strengthening contacts, because internet communication and thinking on the couch are not enough.We need to feel with our own eyes and look through a certain event, situation. It does not necessarily have to be a conflict region. There are many requests to evaluate the work of the Eurasian Union. It would be nice, for example, if experts could adequately evaluate their closest partner of the EaEU.Russia is quite a big country, Moscow does not make impressions about Russia as a whole. Contacts need to be more regular, it would be nice for Russian regions to join it.Russia has quite firm regional political schools – in Perm, Yekaterinburg, Barnaul, Novosibirsk – but we do not know many of our colleagues ther and do not communicate with them. I assume that we have no interregional cooperation, but it is going on at a very high level (it is usually business delegations and heads of state). The expert element is not as big as wanted. I think our Russian colleagues should be invited to Kazakhstani regions more often, because Astana and Almaty do not show everything we can
