Organized Crime in Kazakhstan

                It has been well established that organized crime is one of the prime movers in the drug trade within Central Asia, and as I have discussed previously, it has been speculated that similar groups are responsible for the rise in human trafficking within the country. However, given their secretive nature, little is known about the character of these groups. I have pulled together what is readily available from academic and media sources, which gives a basic understanding of these groups in Kazakhstan.

                Van Dijk (2007) constructed the Composite Organize Crime Index, which combines the assessed perception of organized crime prevalence, state corruption, money-laundering, and the size of the black market, from data drawn from annual World Economic Forum surveys, the Merchant International Group’s investment risk assessments, World Bank Institute studies, and official crime statistics.[1] Within this index, as of 2007, Kazakhstan was rated at 100 on a 1-113 scale. Among former Soviet and communist states, Kazakhstan placed below Albania at 110, was on par with Russia and Ukraine, but was significantly higher than the Kyrgyz Republic at 80, and Uzbekistan and Belarus at 75. The index is now seven years old and the prevalence of organized crime in Kazakhstan may be contemporarily different. However, the lack of a significant national crackdown on organized crime and the continuing flow of narcotics from Afghanistan to Russia indicate that these criminal groups are likely still quite active.

                Recent analysis of organized crime in Kazakhstan is difficult to obtain; however, Curtis (2002) provides useful results from his field research into the ethnic composition of such criminal groups in the early 2000s. He conducted interviews with locals across the region who had either knowledge or personal experience with the drug trade. Interestingly, Chechens were reported to be the most common ethnic group involved in narcotics trafficking in Central Asia (and Russia and the Caucasus in general). While Russian criminal groups previously dominated these regions, in 1993 Chechen smugglers emerged and utilized the large Chechen diaspora (a result of Stalin’s deportations in the 1940s) to provide a cover for their trade. Strong relationships with locals were built over time, and the Russian mafia was pushed out of much of the drug trade in Central Asia. Curtis reports that the Russians moved more into the smuggling of “seafood, automobiles, and timber”, leaving narcotics to the Chechens. While some have proposed that the rise of the Chechen groups was an attempt to fund the ongoing conflict in Chechnya, Curtis claims individual profit has always been the primary motive. More recently, Kazakh, Kyrgyz and Uzbek criminal groups have moved into the rapidly expanding narcotics trade, and are likely more prominent now. The drop in the price of heroin in the early 2000s boosted the number of users, and the increase in Afghan production following the ousting of the Taliban has both increased supply and demand across the region over the past decade.[2]

                The decline of the original Russia-based criminal groups in drug trafficking was instigated by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent decline of the “symbiotic relationship” between the criminal groups and the government, which had provided tacit official acceptance and protection of the organizations in exchange for a degree of governmental control over certain activities. The privatization of the Soviet economy in the 1990s also opened the door to competition. A lack of regulation and rule of law allowed various criminal gangs to proliferate and profit from the black market, official corruption, and the establishment of protection payments on legitimate businesses, commonly referred to as the ‘roof’ or крыша, across the former Soviet Union. The considerable presence of Chechen businessmen across the FSU allowed them to organize and successfully push back against the extortion. However, their collective strength also allowed many to move into the protection racket themselves and further into organized crime. The prominent Chechen guerilla Ruslan Gelayev was reported to have emerged and progressed within Chechen protection rackets before establishing himself within the separatist movement.[3]

                The established Chechen criminal groups have faced additional competition in the drug trade from members of governmental agencies. Members of the Federal Security Service, the Ministry of the Interior’s security forces, and private security forces have used their authority and capabilities to establish their own protection rackets in both legitimate enterprises and on the criminal gangs themselves. The continued presence of Russian security forces across the FSU has allowed them to maintain a strong presence within the drug trade by providing protection in return for a share of the profits. Security officials may even be running several of the criminal organizations themselves.[4]

                Additional research indicates that these official rackets are more likely in Kazakhstan than traditional extortion by independent criminal groups. Roberts et al. (2003) conducted surveys of business owners and managers in Kazakhstan from 2000 - 2001. They found that when the “mafia” was mentioned, it generally referred to the “shadows of official state structures.” Official corruption ranged from tacitly ignoring narcotics trafficking to direct participation in the trade, and likely was prevalent into the highest offices. Moreover, businesses looking for a reliable ‘roof’ from harassment were more likely to make protection payments to government officials as opposed to gangsters. However, their research did find that this ‘bureaucratic extortion’ was less common in Kazakhstan than it was in Russia.[5]

---

[1] Van Dijk, Jan. 2007. “Mafia Markers: Assessing Organized Crime and its Impact Upon Societies.” Trends in Organized Crime 10, 39-56  

[2] Curtis, Glenn E. 2002. “Involvement of Russian Organized Crime Syndicates, Criminal Elements in the Russian Military, and Regional Terrorist Groups in Narcotics Trafficking in Central Asia, the Caucasus, And Chechnya.” Narcotics Trafficking in Former Soviet Union -  Federal Research Division, Library of Congress Report.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Roberts, Ken and Jochen Tholen, Takir Balykbaev and Daulet Duisenbekov. 2003. “Post-Soviet Management: Evidence from Kazakhstan.” Journal for East European Management Studies 8(3), 319-331

The Zhuz in Kazakh Politics

                Previously, I have focused on analyzing Kazakh data strictly along provincial lines (fourteen oblasts and the two cities of Astana and Almaty). However, crossing provincial boundaries are regional ethnic ties that permeate Kazakh politics and are generally classified at their broadest levels as Hordes or zhuz (жүз). Often referred to as tribes, these confederations are divided into the Great (Ұлы жүз), Middle (Орта жүз), and Junior (Кiшi жүз). Each zhuz is sub-divided further into groups usually denoted as “clans”, with further sub-divisions down to individual lineages. The significance of these associations within the heavily clientelist politics of Kazakhstan could be influential in my analysis of human trafficking risk within the provinces. As I discussed in previous posts, individuals become more susceptible to human traffickers if they face a severe lack of opportunity in their home region. Particularly young people, with little social or employment prospects at home, are more likely to take risky jobs abroad that can ensnare them in foreign trafficking rings, or engage in other risky behavior domestically such as drug trafficking or prostitution. Patron-client networks in Kazakhstan may favor members of one zhuz over another based on access to officials in power, and if so this could have a considerable impact on available opportunities and resources to members of a zhuz without powerful patrons.

                Schatz (2000, 2005) provides an informative account of the resurgence of clan politics following independence in Kazakhstan, and the role the zhuz play today. Despite the professed push for erasing class distinctions in the Soviet Union, individual Kazakh identification with their historical zhuz was not eliminated. Instead, these identities became crucial in an era of scarcity under the Communist system. Individuals relied on familial networks to not only secure good positions, but also to obtain basic goods and services. Into modern times, the near universal possession of extensive individual genealogical knowledge created easily accessible, and manipulatable, identifiers for members to connect with one another. The average Kazakh is expected to accurately know and be able to orally trace their genealogical lineage going back to at least the seventh generation. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, early elite efforts at nation-building utilized these ethnic identities to increase a societal sense of “Kazakhness” independent of their Soviet past, and to build their own individual power bases for political gain. Elites used their lineage connections to establish a link with as many supporters as possible, over time this became “a virtual bidding war” that pushed these ethnic markers to the forefront of Kazakh politics (Schatz, 2005). Despite early elite intentions to build a unifying Kazakh identity by encouraging Kazakhs to embrace their zhuz, the exploitation of these associations by elites heavily politicized these identifications and polarized society along zhuz and clan lines. As political elites ascended into power and maintained their positions based on these associations, they grew increasingly more salient as the spoils and rewards of office were increasingly limited to members of the zhuz in power.

                Post-independence, zhuz and clan distinctions have become intrinsically tied to power and goods distribution. To gain access to lucrative posts in state bureaucracy that provide access to rents from the extractive industries, elites continue to rely on their clan connections, and distribute the spoils to their key supporters in this patron-client system. Local elites push their kin-based connections to potential supporters, and emphasize the likely benefits to be received in reward for support, and the need for clan-based loyalty to protect members from the aspirations of competing clans. President Nazarbaev and his family are a prime example. At the center of power for the entirety of Kazakhstan’s independence, he has been in a prime position to privilege both family members and his fellow members of the Great zhuz. A pattern of political appointments and key contracts by him have tended to favor extended family and core members of his zhuz. However, Nazarbaev’s core concern of preventing any regionalist movements built on excluded clan loyalties that might challenge national integrity and his hold on power, led to a policy of clan balancing within the provinces that to a degree has worked to push the clan out of regional politics. Given the strength of their position, provincial governors have been rotated regularly to prevent any from building a rival power base. Few served longer than two years in office before being moved to other state posts.

               

                Despite Nazarbaev’s intentions, clan association is still a crucial political factor at the regional level. Governors are usually from whatever clan is dominant in the region. Schatz (2005) provides an example:

“Most found it hard to imagine a situation in which, for example, the governor of Atyrau region could be a non-Zhetiru or the governor of South Kazakhstan region could be a non-Dulat.”

Upon assuming power, governors often quickly moved to reward their supporters and fill the bureaucracy with loyalists (Schatz, 2005):

“For example, upon assuming office in 1995 the governor of Zhambyl region removed 140 employees, replacing 80% of them with members of the Zhanys subdivision of the Dulat division (Great zhuz clan). In Torghai region the new governor promoted the members of his clan Zhoghary-Shekty of the Arghyn division (Middle zhuz), at the expense of traditionally predominant Uzyn and Qulan-Qypshaq subdivisions (also Middle zhuz). In the South Kazakhstan region, local subethnic patronage networks ensnared members of the lucrative extractive industries, who had a stake in the region’s oil refinery.”

It was difficult for governors from non-local clans to succeed, as sub-par performance was instantly ascribed to their clan association, and support would vanish quickly.

                Schatz (2005) provides an analysis of the respective positions of the three zhuz both within the elite population and within state bureaucracy, and how these positions have evolved since independence. He only looks at rural-born elite as zhuz identification is the easiest to identify for Kazakhs from rural portions of the country, where zhuz membership is still geographically associated. His analysis has shown that over time, the Great zhuz has consistently been disproportionately represented in state bureaucracy compared to their demographic position, with the Junior zhuz continually relegated to the weakest position. The Junior zhuz has been historically excluded from powerful positions, which could be partially attributable to the physical distance between Junior power centers in the west of the country and the Soviet-era capital of Almaty (a map illustrating the general location of the zhuz and their clans is included at the bottom). Great and Middle zhuz members have also been generally better educated and trained since the Soviet period. Although initially excluded to some degree from power, the Middle zhuz has been pulled into an alliance with the Great zhuz, as illustrated by the relocation of the capital city from Almaty in Great zhuz territory, to Astana in Middle zhuz territory, and significant incorporation of Middle zhuz members into state power structures. The following graphs provided by Shatz (2005) illustrate the disproportionate representation of the Great and Middle zhuz in the Kazakh elite (Table 2), and the shift in zhuz representation after the alliance between the Great (also referred to as Elder) and Middle zhuz (Tables 3 and 4).

Schatz, Edward. 2000. “The Politics of Multiple Identities: Lineage and Ethnicity in Kazakhstan.” Europe-Asia Studies 52(3): 489-506

Schatz, Edward. 2005. “Reconceptualizing Clans: Kinship Networks and Statehood in Kazakhstan.” Nationalities Papers 33(2)