SPIK.KZ

Nursultan Nazarbayev once annually communicated via a "direct line" with the people of Kazakhstan, but stopped doing so in 2012. Kassym-Jomart Tokayev also does not use this format of dialogue with the population. But, for example, in neighboring Russia this tradition has been preserved - the next "direct line" with Vladimir Putin will take place very soon, on December 19.

According to experts, this project is purely political technology, and it has both pros and cons. The latter include excessive overorganization, the desire to create an illusion of a real dialogue between the authorities and society instead of establishing one, an obsession with private issues of citizens and a departure from truly serious systemic problems. Among the pros, one can note, first of all, that the authorities have the opportunity to understand what moods prevail in the midst of the "deep people", what problems worry people.

Given this, is there any point in reviving this format of communication between the supreme power and the people of Kazakhstan? How relevant is it in the current conditions? What can such "direct lines" give to society, the president himself, people from the authorities? Or is there no need for them, especially if we keep in mind that our officials, based on the principle of "what if something happens", can discredit any initiative? We addressed these and other questions to our experts.

Yuri Buluktayev, chief researcher at the Institute of Philosophy, Political Science and Religious Studies:
"Such a dialogue can be called super-monitoring"

- Historical experience shows that weak feedback in the system of public administration can become one of the reasons for a state crisis and the loss of stability of the political system. And the "direct line" with the president is one of the varieties of such communication.

On the one hand, within the framework of this format, the president physically cannot respond to all the questions received - and several thousand or even millions of them can pass through a special message processing center. For example, in 2007, Nazarbayev answered only 35 questions out of 5 thousand during the "direct line", and in 2009 - 38 out of 32 thousand. In turn, Putin, within the framework of the "direct line" and press conference in 2023, managed to answer 80 questions out of 3 million received!

On the other hand, such a dialogue can be called super-monitoring, since it identifies problems existing in all spheres of society's life, the needs of different categories of the population. At the same time, the president is approached not only with questions - many consider the "direct line" a good opportunity to convey their wishes and initiatives to him.

That is why Tokayev created a special department in the Presidential Administration, which monitors the quality of consideration of citizens' appeals by government agencies and takes prompt measures on them. After all, people are often forced to write directly to the head of state due to the "deafness" and closed nature of officials in the center and at the local level. Repeated complaints about the unfairness of decisions in some area mean the presence of systemic problems in a specific government agency or region.

Of course, “direct lines” are useful for both society and government agencies. But the decision on whether to revive them or not will come from the latter, since they define, design and implement various forms and mechanisms of interaction with citizens into political practice.

In general, in the conditions of modern communicative reality, in addition to “direct lines”, there are other types of feedback between those in power and the population. For example, the annual Presidential Address to the People, which is broadcast live. National Kurultai, where the most pressing national tasks are discussed in order to solve them (previously, this was done by the NSOD). In addition, the search for feedback, ideas and opinions is carried out through public consultations, surveys, general meetings, online forums and other participation mechanisms.

After the president set the task of implementing the concept of a “listening state”, which should promptly and effectively respond to all constructive requests from citizens, new communication channels appeared in Kazakhstan. This is the digital system “Open Government” with various digital platforms. Single call center 1414 for questions on public services throughout the country. Plus the activity of political servants in social networks. For example, the president has accounts on Twitter, Facebook, Telegram, Instagram. Members of the government and many deputies of the Majilis and Senate also use these social networks for public communication. And akims have created personal blogs on the Internet and chats in WhatsApp, where they accept requests from residents.

The main thing is that the strategy of the "listening state" and social reality are more often subjected to a compatibility test, so that the authorities are less often characterized in social networks as "hard of hearing" and "hard of hearing". It is important to consider not only the number of wishes of the population that they fulfill, but also their percentage of the total number of requests.

Kamila Kovyazina, sociologist, researcher at the PaperLab Research Center:
"There should be many other ways to be heard"

- "Direct Line" with the president is a rare practice in the world. I tried to find where else, except for Russia, they use this type of communication between the head of state and citizens, but I did not find it. And if you think about it, you can understand why.

"Direct Line" performs two functions. Firstly, it gives people a feeling that they can be heard. Although in a normally functioning electoral democracy there should be many other ways to do this - through participation in political parties, public associations, representative bodies (parliament or lower-level legislature). At the same time, the main and easiest way to be heard is to vote for the candidate whose ideas and election promises seem closest to you. And if all these tools are available, then why do we need a "direct line" once a year? It turns out that this is a kind of replacement for the existing institutions of political representation and participation.

Secondly, the "direct line" strengthens and enhances the positive image of the president as a person "close to the people" and fulfilling their wishes. There are even works on how personalistic autocracies are strengthened through such political technology tools. "The Tsar is good, the boyars are bad" is a well-known narrative that allows one to whitewash, say, Putin in contrast to governors, deputies, ministers and others. After all, such a format adds advantages to the Russian leader, but does not help institutional development, that is, the development of the same institutions of elections, the presidency, checks and balances, because people get the impression that everything depends on one person, and not on a well-built system.

In addition, researchers say that events like the "direct line" create a false and dangerous sense that the president is the sole center of decision-making, thereby excluding all other government structures from the attention of citizens.

Based on the above, I consider the fact that Kazakhstan does not hold a "direct line" with the president to be rather a plus. But this plus is lost against the background of the fact that in the perception of Kazakhstanis, such an important institution of a democratic state as elections has long been discredited. Therefore, the authorities have to invent the National Council of Public Trust, Kurultai, kenesas in rural districts, etc., and citizens have to look for alternative ways to promote their interests: petitions, posts and reposts on social networks, applications in e-otinish, etc. Fortunately, decision makers at least take them into account, although sometimes in a completely distorted form. Ideally, we would like to see trust in elections return in the foreseeable future.

Talgat Kaliyev, Director of the Institute of Applied Ethnopolitical Research:
"This is not the most effective form of communication"

- Within the framework of the "listening state" concept, communication between the authorities and society has become possible on a permanent basis, and not once a year in the format of a "direct line". Thanks to social networks, you can ask a question directly to almost all representatives of the authorities, including the speakers of the Senate and Majilis of Parliament, the Prime Minister, the State Advisor, who have their own active pages there. Surely, the president himself regularly monitors social networks to keep abreast of all current topics and resonant events. This is noticeable by the speed of his reactions.

The "direct line" itself looks like an anachronism. Especially since the average age of the population of Kazakhstan is 32 years, and young people, as a rule, do not watch TV. In addition, this format, if you remember, looked a bit showy. Citizens' questions were strictly moderated, only "convenient" ones were allowed through. And in general, this is not the most effective form of communication - it is too formalized.

And the fact that Vladimir Putin continues to hold "direct lines" is due to the familiarity of the format. In Russia, this event has been turned into a real show, long and carefully rehearsed. Plus, the average age of the population there is 42 years old, and television is still the main source of information for most Russians.

After all, each president has his own way of interacting with citizens. Some find it convenient to communicate with them live for several hours, while others find it convenient to maintain continuous feedback...

author Saule Isabaeva

https://spik.kz/2090-stoit-li-vozrozhdat-v-kazahstane-prjamye-linii-s-glavoj-gosudarstva.html