In your tenure as Chairman of the Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan for Civil Service Affairs, you introduced a number of significant reforms. What motivated these moves?

After conducting a study of how countries build efficient civil services, we concluded that, in addition to ensuring institutional certainty and responsibility in government, civil servants had to be professionalised and protected from political interference and instability.

Consequently, we developed a groundbreaking law for the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which distinguished political appointees from career civil servants for the first time. Career civil servants were granted protection from dismissal during leadership changes. This was a crucial development: previously, up to half the staff could be replaced within several months of a new minister or governor taking office.

We also made it mandatory for candidates to be admitted to the civil service through a competitive selection process. We adopted a positional model whereby specialists from different sectors could apply openly for positions at different levels of the public service. This was necessary since the country was modernising and undergoing political, economic, and social reforms, as well as a transformation in the role of the state.

Understandably, when the economy is growing rapidly, competition for civil service positions will tend to decrease. The goal is not for all the best talent to work exclusively in the public service. However, given the significant role of the state in post-totalitarian societies, it is important to protect professionals by offering an alternative to high salaries: a guaranteed opportunity to serve the public good and to realise their ideas for their country. One important initiative in this direction has been the Presidential Youth Personnel Reserve, which was created to identify and attract talented young people for the civil service.

Before the move to establish the Agency in 1998, several government bodies, including the Executive Office of the President and the Prime Minister’s Office, were able to influence HR processes in the civil services without accountability. Hence, the law we introduced also provided for the creation of the Civil Service Affairs Agency itself.

Our primary aim was to create a professional civil service dedicated to serving the nation and capable of addressing contemporary challenges.

What are some challenges you faced in pursuing reforms to professionalise the civil service?

In my second tenure as Chairman of the Agency in 2011, the institutional base had already been established, and the legislation had evolved. However, we faced resistance from political appointees in the civil service who were hindering progressive reforms, as well as continuity issues with changing political appointees. Poor attention was being paid to long-term strategic interests, and there was a lack of professionalism in government HR units.

We then amended the law to help professionalise the HR units, and created the Senior Executive Service, known as “A” Corps. We reclassified certain political positions to reduce the headcount of political appointee civil servants and implemented a more transparent selection mechanism. This move attracted significant public interest and boosted public trust.

Notably, 57 serving district leaders failed to pass the selection. While this made way for new talent to enter the civil service, it also attracted political pressure, leading to the merger in 2014 of the Agency for Civil Service Affairs with the Anti-Corruption Agency. As a result, the selection process for “A” Corps is no longer transparent to the public.

One peculiarity of public service reform is that resistance often comes from within. It frequently arises from colleagues you work with demanding that you explain and debate the proposed changes. Hence, would-be reformers must always be ready to face inconvenience and discomfort, because such reforms are not always welcomed by politicians who want to maintain their privilege under a patronage system. At times, progressive changes may even be rolled back. Ultimately political will, and the readiness of reformers to protect core principles as well as the country’s long-term interests, are key.

Among the initiatives you have introduced is the Astana Civil Service Hub (ACSH), a platform for participating countries to exchange knowledge and experiences in the field of public administration. What impact has the Hub made since its founding?

When we began negotiations with embassy representatives in 2012, which eventually led to the establishment of ACSH in 2013, no one anticipated the results we have since achieved.

ACSH has now organised more than 200 capacity-building and research activities for over 12,000 participants from 126 countries and 200 organisations. Furthermore, we have published over 80 knowledge products, which are in high demand. Alongside more established approaches, we have also experimented with new modalities, such as peer-to-peer learning alliances.

Since the inception of ACSH, we have adopted a demand-driven and flexible agenda, with minimal red tape, recognising that government priorities are not fixed: we must respond to changing priorities and needs. To achieve this, we conduct needs assessment surveys, as well as informal consultations with heads of government agencies and the ACSH Advisory Board. We have also aimed to create the right expectations: we may now have 43 participating countries, but it does not mean that every one of them will be involved in every activity or be active in all initiatives.

Today, ACSH has evolved into a unique global platform. Our network of partnerships is expanding, and we value the high level of cooperation with government agencies and professional associations on every continent. Some of our partners remain engaged with us even after leaving their positions in their respective countries. The informal aspects of our work at ACSH are also very important. Institutes and academies of public administration, particularly in our region, have drawn closer and now have means for regular communication and the exchange of experiences, which will have an impact in the long term.

We are also discovering new ways to cooperate. An exemplary case is the joint regional project implemented by the ACSH in partnership with the Government of the Republic of Korea (Ministry of the Interior and Safety, and National Information Society Agency) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The project set out to develop the digitalisation capabilities of civil servants in seven countries in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Due to its success, the project has been extended to 2026 and its scope has been expanded from seven to 12 countries, including participants from the Asia-Pacific region.

How do Peer-to-Peer Learning Alliances work in practice across the 43 ACSH member countries?

In implementing our Peer-to-Peer Learning Alliances, ACSH observes a number of guiding principles. First, there are no silver bullet solutions to issues. Second, we recognise that every government operates in a unique cultural, historical, geopolitical, and geoeconomic context. Third, no one should feel like either a student or a teacher—we are a community of peers.

We are pleased to have achieved an environment where even representatives of governments from countries who may have tense relationships with one another can feel free to sit around the table and share experience and knowledge.

We have introduced a number of Peer-to-Peer Learning Alliances on the theme of Public Services Delivery, focusing on topics such as creating a “one-stop-shop” for service delivery, e-government development, transformation and innovations in governance, and more recently, artificial intelligence (AI) and new technologies, as well as project management for advancing the sustainable development goals. We also plan to launch an alliance on competency-based selection.

Out of these Learning Alliances, several study visits, seminars, and case studies have emerged. This approach to networking between civil service practitioners has proven to be both popular and an efficient way to exchange knowledge and working practices, helping countries to develop solutions that best fit their own contexts.

To continue supporting knowledge-sharing during the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, ACSH launched a Virtual Alliance of practitioners. This has led to the contribution of more than 40 practical case studies and recommendations, from 30 countries.

ACSH remains at the forefront of seeking innovative learning approaches and opportunities, ensuring that our participating countries benefit from the latest and most effective practices.

Every government operates in a unique cultural, historical, geopolitical, and geoeconomic context.

You emphasise that every government must operate within their country’s unique context and history. What challenges has Kazakhstan had to overcome as a post-Soviet state?

Kazakhstan regained its independence in 1991 after having been under a totalitarian system for a long time. In the last years of Soviet power, a paradox emerged where society condemned those who stole private property, but tolerated those who stole state property. The population’s income was often inadequate without engaging in the shadow economy, which led to widespread nesunstvo, or petty theft.

This environment created fertile ground for a surge in corruption, allowing certain elite groups to appropriate a significant portion of the wealth under the guise of rapid liberal reforms, especially those to do with privatisation. This legacy persists, as these groups now control a significant part of the country’s financial resources. It has become clear that without restructuring the economy and enhancing the role of small- and medium-sized businesses, it is nigh impossible to establish independent public organisations, political parties, and media outlets. This has contributed to a vicious cycle and poor transparency and accountability.

This paradox is evident in Kazakhstan’s development: while the country excels in digitalisation, public service provision, and legislative and institutional support for civil service reform—ranking highly in international indices—it scores poorly on measures related to the rule of law and corruption, often placing in the lower half of rankings. This contradiction inspired “Progress and its Paradoxes”, the title of the chapter dedicated to Kazakhstan in the book “Public Service Evolution in the 15 Post-Soviet Countries: Diversity in Transformation”.¹ Kazakhstan’s wealth of mineral resources offers a significant opportunity for the country to advance its technological infrastructure for public administration. However, the primary challenge remains: getting our elite to commit to and exercise responsibility for the country’s long-term interests.

How is Kazakhstan addressing this critical challenge of fighting corruption?

To fight corruption, we must begin with the state. We have to ensure transparency for all government financial flows and activities, including those of government agencies, national companies, state transactions, and the benefits and preferences granted to individual economic entities.

In this critical and complex matter, political will is paramount. Without it, any endeavours to combat corruption are unlikely to yield substantial results. At the same time, eradicating corruption within the judicial and law enforcement systems is imperative: this is a fundamental prerequisite for achieving success in the fight against corruption nationally.

With the change in presidential leadership, bold steps are now being taken. In 2022, public outcry over the Qantar events² led the top authorities to acknowledge the concentration of wealth in the hands of 162 families for the first time in 30 years. This has resulted in a proclamation of economic demonopolisation. President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has initiated the establishment of a Commission for Illegal Asset Recovery, of which I am a member, and our work has now commenced.

To ensure the sustainability of these reforms, further changes to the political system are necessary. Civil servants and political officials still do not feel that their fate is tied to the voice of the people, despite the president’s recent pledge of a “listening state”. The ability to listen may depend on qualifications and individual upbringing, but the desire to listen is determined by the political system. The fate of political officials’ careers should be influenced by public opinion. But such reforms continue to face resistance from some within the state apparatus.

We need to keep making progress. First, it will be crucial to establish restrictions in local maslikhats (representative bodies), ensuring that those who receive salaries from the same budget level cannot serve as deputies. This is essential for controlling executive power. Second, we must ensure the transparency and fairness of elections at all levels. Third, the independence of the judiciary must be guaranteed.

Blockchain technologies represent a powerful tool for enhancing transparency in privatisation and investment transactions, taxation, and the allocation of public resources. We will also need to enact legislation requiring all private companies involved in government procurement and public-private partnerships, using government investments or benefiting from government guarantees, to adhere to stringent transparency standards. This includes disclosing the identities of ultimate beneficiaries, akin to initial public offerings on international exchanges.

Moreover, there is a pressing need to introduce dedicated “conflict of interest” legislation that encompasses all public servants, quasi-public sector managers, and individuals engaged in state asset disposal, including of shares and stocks. We must also safeguard whistleblowers who aid in anti-corruption efforts by reporting wrong-doing to authorised bodies.

These are areas where Kazakhstan still has significant steps to take.

The ability to listen may depend on qualifications and individual upbringing, but the desire to listen is determined by the political system.

Kazakhstan’s rich history was not always celebrated before independence. How vital is a nation’s history for creating a shared identity and national vision for the future?

The Soviet regime did not allow us to fully explore our own history.

At the end of the 1920s, our Qazaq alphabet, which had used the Arabic script for a thousand years, was changed to the Latin script. Ten years later, it was replaced by the Cyrillic alphabet. These steps were taken to erase historical memory and damage self-esteem, as well as a sense of pride in our historical past. Today, the Kazakh language is a vital unifying element in a country where more than
120 ethnic groups live.

In the 1920s and 1930s, two famines claimed half the population’s lives, and several waves of repression decimated our nation’s native elite. During Soviet times, these tragic chapters of history were suppressed. The names of prominent Kazakh figures were banned. For example, in my generation few share my name “Alikhan” because it was associated with Alikhan Bokeikhanov, the leader of the national liberation movement of the early 20th century. Additionally, the names of those who organised uprisings against the Russian Empire and Soviet power, or who were associated with the prosperous states of the Middle Ages, were banned. When I was a student, we knew more about the history of Russia and other parts of the world than about our own history.

The restoration of independence allowed us to delve deeper into our history. At the same time, it gave us the chance to be open to the entire world: we regained our ability to directly contact, communicate, and exchange experiences and knowledge with other states without seeking permission from a central authority.

We are still recovering lost chapters of our history. We take pride in the remarkable scientific and cultural achievements of our ancestors, who established this region as a global leader a thousand years ago. In the realm of public administration, for instance, our illustrious forebears, such as the 10th century political philosopher Al-Farabi and the 11th century poet and statesman Yūsuf Balasaguni, have made noteworthy contributions.

However, pride in our past should not lead to self-isolation and autarky: we must remain part of the world. Today’s sources of innovation and new knowledge lie mainly outside the country, and we must be open to harnessing them for our benefit. The people of Kazakhstan have inherited a culture characterised by adaptability, tolerance, and open-mindedness. We must leverage and build upon these cultural strengths in today’s globalised world. This is key to combining our unique heritage with our aspiration to live in harmony with the rest of the world.