Tokayev and the Scourge of ‘Social Parasitism’ in Kazakhstan

Осы мақаланың қазақша нұсқасын оқыңыз.

Читайте этот материал на русском.

During his latest Address to the Nation in early September, Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev accused Kazakhstani citizens of “social parasitism,” condemning them for exploiting an “inflated” welfare system, and criticizing the government itself for having spent years “encouraging laziness.”

While announcing that the government would be reviewing its social policies, Tokayev was also, in part, picking up where his predecessor left off. Throughout his 29 years in power, former President Nursultan Nazarbayev often called on his countrymen to achieve self-sufficiency and blamed those who sought to exploit his government’s generosity.

Experts believe that Tokayev’s statements–and those by Nazarbayev before him–represent an ideological worldview genuinely held by Kazakhstani elites. From this point of view, it is the citizens, not the government, who are responsible for poverty, inequality, or other social issues arising from its economic policies. 

Multiplying Veterans

Typically, Kazakhstani citizens eagerly await the social section of Tokayev’s annual address, where he usually tackles societal issues in a positive light–announcing wage rises and new benefits, or introducing new social programs like the National Fund for Children.

This year, however, Tokayev criticized the government’s welfare policies and proposed to overhaul them to prevent “social fraud” and abuse by the population.

“The government’s short-sighted, accommodating social policies have led to the appearance of more than a hundred different kinds of social benefits, sought after by a certain category of citizens, the ‘freeloaders’,” Tokayev said during his speech. “Why would they work when they could receive welfare payments for almost everyone in their family?” 

The Baiterek monument in Astana. Photo by Zhanara Karimova.

Describing various exploitative groups among Kazakhstan’s citizenry, Tokayev condemned how the national divorce rate had “skyrocketed” after new payments for single-parent families were announced, observed that Soviet veterans, who still receive welfare, were “getting younger and multiplying,” and noted that people were “flocking to the capital” due to its generous welfare and social services.

“There are many such examples; we are encouraging laziness and social parasitism,” Tokayev said.

Continuing Traditions

Such statements echo Nazarbayev’s earlier rhetoric. Back in 1997, while presenting his Kazakhstan-2030 Strategy, the former president declared that the state should support only the most vulnerable groups, while everyone else had to “manage on their own.”

In this way, he justified cutting back social support for citizens amid the country’s “shock therapy” market reforms, which entailed a largely unregulated privatization of state assets, price liberalization, labor market deregulation, and the dismantling of social guarantees.

Tokayev (left) meeting then-President Nazarbayev in 2012. Photo: akorda.kz.

“Nazarbayev laid the foundations for a ‘neoliberal’ shift that normalized social inequality and placed responsibility for individual well-being on each person rather than on the state,” says Eugenia Pesci, a doctoral researcher at the University of Helsinki.

First deployed to justify sweeping market reforms in the 1990s, neoliberal rhetoric stuck around in Kazakhstan. Thereafter, Nazarbayev regularly condemned the problem of “parasitism,” and even used in 2017 the same turn of phrase–“social fraud”–that reappeared in Tokayev’s speech in September:

“We are teaching people to be parasites. We already give everyone social benefits and loans... There are jobs in Kazakhstan. Those who don't work don't eat; that's the rule,” Nazarbayev said.

After coming to power following Nazarbayev’s resignation in 2019, Tokayev wasted little time in expressing similar social views. Three days after taking office, Tokayev stressed that while the government would support the most vulnerable, “everyone else should work.”

“We must create conditions for employment and professional growth for our citizens, especially young people, [but] we must not encourage social parasitism among those who are not seeking employment,” Tokayev said. 

Situational Socialism

Despite their neoliberal social attitudes, Kazakhstan’s presidents have shown themselves to be flexible on the “parasitism” rhetoric when public support is needed. Under Nazarbayev, for example, the government increased state salaries and benefits in the run-up to almost every presidential election, a practice later continued by Tokayev.

Both presidents have likewise turned to displays of generosity during national crises to bolster their public image. For instance, in August 2015, after a collapse in global oil prices and the shift to a free-floating tenge exchange rate sent Kazakhstan’s economy into turmoil, Nazarbayev announced wage hikes for public-sector employees and pledged to develop new social policies to cushion the population from the downturn.

Similarly, in the months following a tragic house fire in Astana in 2019 that claimed the lives of five children whose parents had been working extended shifts in order to make ends meet, Tokayev announced the expansion of welfare benefits for large families. 

A protest in early 2019, after the fire in Astana. Photo by Tamara Vaal.

Another example was the minimum wage increase after Qandy Qantar (Kazakh for ‘Bloody January’–the violent repression of urban protests in 2022).

“Social policy oscillates between generosity and retrenchment depending on the political moment. When legitimacy must be secured, social benefits expand; when the pressure eases, the discourse reverts to efficiency, responsibility, and reducing the state’s obligations,” Pesci said.

According to political scientist Dimash Alzhanov, this is not a contradiction, but rather the regime’s way of functioning.

“To reduce discontent and bolster support ahead of elections, the authorities are increasing social benefits. At the same time, reforms that would make the people economically self-sufficient are not being implemented,” Alzhanov told Vlast.

Between 2022-2023, however, after Tokayev and the pro-presidential Amanat party won both presidential and parliamentary elections, the government returned to its former rhetoric of “parasitism,” and soon proposed denying welfare benefits to people with loans, reducing maternity and childcare payments, and cutting the government’s social spending more broadly.

Scapegoat Economics

According to several experts who study Kazakhstan’s economy, the government’s vilification of “freeloaders” and “social parasitism” is largely unfounded and masks deeper problems stemming from the government's inadequate economic policies.

“Even though there have indeed been cases of fake recipients of social assistance, the problem of ‘parasitism’ is overstated,” Pesci said, highlighting the fact that only 413,000 citizens received the government’s targeted social assistance program in 2024, down from over 2 million people in 2019.

In Pesci’s view, the government’s recent decision to increase the minimum threshold for targeted social assistance by tying it to a percentage of median national income rather than the previous government-calculated baseline has “increased the number of benefit recipients slightly,” but still “nothing comparable to previous years.”

Moreover, according to Darina Zhunussova, a researcher at the Paperlab Research Center in Astana, if people are in fact seeking to exploit the government’s welfare system, it’s primarily due to a lack of economic stability in the country.

“Most people today find themselves in precarious employment or even in forms of unfree wage labor, where their ‘choice’ of work is extremely limited. In such an environment, seeking workarounds is a natural survival strategy, so accusing people of ‘laziness’ and ‘parasitism’ is not only unfair, but also incorrect,” Zhunussova told Vlast.

Sociologist Galym Zhussipbek is likewise critical of Tokayev’s recent statements, and believes that important structural explanations should be understood before anyone accuses Kazakhstani citizens of “parasitism”.

“Do we really offer such high payments to encourage people to get divorced? At current levels, if you’re living on welfare benefits and the minimum wage, you can only cover your most basic needs, eating bread and water,” Zhussipbek noted.

According to Zhussipbek, before pointing fingers at people’s “laziness,” it is necessary to understand the structural features of Kazakhstan’s economy.

“Which social groups does the economy serve? Ordinary citizens or oligarchic groups and transnational corporations? Even our oil doesn’t serve the people,” Zhussipbek said.

Atyrau's back streets. Photo by Almas Kaisar.

Pesci, who believes the government’s rhetoric on “parasitism” obscures the barriers faced by citizens trying to escape poverty, agrees.

“The lack of formal jobs in rural areas, low wages, and caregiving responsibilities all limit the ability of low-income households to escape poverty, regardless of individual motivation or effort,” Pesci explained.

According to Zhussipbek, though Kazakhstan’s Constitution proclaims the country to be a welfare state, in reality it is anything but.

“If the minimum wage in Kazakhstan were in the range of 300,000-400,000 tenge ($546-$728), perhaps then we could talk about ‘parasitism’. However, this is not the case. Our people have gone through difficult times of market reforms, and now they work several jobs and continue to endure a great deal,” Zhussipbek told Vlast.

An edited version of this article was translated by Oliver Fisk.