Kazakhstan’s recent constitutional reform takes place within a broader process that goes beyond institutional reorganisation. International commentary has focused largely on the redistribution of political powers and state restructuring. Yet these debates often overlook another aspect: the reform’s role in redefining Kazakhstan’s historical narrative.
Since independence in 1991, Kazakhstan has faced a challenge common to many post-Soviet countries: how to construct a national narrative capable of connecting a modern republic with deeper historical traditions. In this context, the growing emphasis on the Great Steppe, the Golden Horde and the Kazakh Khanate represents an effort to place contemporary Kazakhstan within a longer historical trajectory.
At first glance, these narratives serve a primarily domestic purpose. State identity plays a fundamental internal role, providing symbolic continuity and strengthening national unity. At the same time, the reinterpretation of medieval statehood inevitably intersects with broader Eurasian debates, particularly regarding the shared historical legacy of the Golden Horde and its relevance to both Kazakhstan and Russia.
The constitutional dimension of this process is important because it transforms historical interpretation into part of the state’s institutional narrative. The Constitution does not create Kazakhstan’s historical vision, but it provides a framework through which this vision can become embedded in the political identity of the republic.
In fact, the construction of a historical genealogy has been a central feature of Kazakhstan’s state-building process since independence. Unlike some states with long-established imperial traditions, Kazakhstan emerged as an independent actor from the administrative framework of the Soviet Union. Its borders, institutions and economic structures were deeply shaped by Soviet modernisation, while its cultural and historical identity developed from much older traditions of nomadic statehood.
The concept of the Great Steppe has become an important instrument in addressing this historical complexity. By emphasising the legacy of the nomadic civilisations of Eurasia, the Golden Horde and the Kazakh Khanate, Kazakhstan has sought to present its statehood as part of a broader historical continuum rather than as a product solely of twentieth-century developments.
By framing its history this way, Kazakhstan gains a much deeper sense of historical continuity. It also reflects a broader trend among post-Soviet states, where historical memory has become an important component of state legitimacy. However, this process also has its limitations.
For Kazakhstan, one of the central challenges is balancing the promotion of national identity with the country’s multi-ethnic composition and its long-standing social, economic and cultural connections with Russia. Few would dispute Kazakhstan’s right to develop its own historical narrative. The more difficult issue is how that narrative fits within a diverse society and a complex regional environment.
The renewed attention to the Golden Horde also illustrates the complexity of historical memory in Eurasia. The political legacy of the Golden Horde is not exclusive to any single modern nation. Both Kazakhstan and Russia can legitimately incorporate the Golden Horde into their own historical narratives, albeit in different ways.
In Kazakhstan, the Golden Horde is increasingly viewed as an important predecessor of later forms of state organisation in the steppe, particularly the Kazakh Khanate. This interpretation places emphasis on continuity between medieval political structures and modern statehood, reinforcing the idea of Kazakhstan as a historical actor with roots extending far beyond the Soviet period.
Russia, however, also possesses a significant connection to the legacy of the Golden Horde. Within Eurasianist interpretations of history, the Mongol-Tatar period is often understood not merely as an episode of foreign domination, but as one of the historical experiences that contributed to the formation of the Russian state and the wider Eurasian political space. Thinkers such as Lev Gumilev, for example, have emphasised interaction between Slavic and Turkic civilisations as a defining characteristic of Eurasia.
These readings of history are not contradictory. The same historical legacy can serve different political functions. For Kazakhstan, the Golden Horde provides a foundation for national historical identity. For Russia, it represents a key element within a broader Eurasian historical development.
The potential for tension emerges when historical narratives become framed as exclusive claims of inheritance. However, historical continuity does not automatically translate into geopolitical competition. The relationship between Kazakhstan and Russia remains one of the most important factors shaping the Eurasian security environment. The two countries share the world’s longest continuous land border, extensive economic ties, security cooperation mechanisms and deep societal connections. This reality creates a context in which historical interpretations must be managed carefully.
The strengthening of Kazakh national identity has occasionally generated debates regarding language policy, historical interpretation and the role of Russia in Kazakhstan’s past. Simultaneously, Moscow has generally approached relations with Astana through a pragmatic framework centred on strategic interests rather than exclusive historical claims—which is a central characteristic of post-Soviet Russia’s de-ideologised foreign policy.
This pragmatic approach does not eliminate historical sensitivities. Different interpretations of Soviet, imperial and medieval history will continue to exist. However, the current framework of bilateral relations suggests that historical narratives alone are unlikely to determine the future of Kazakhstan-Russia relations. Ultimately, what matters is whether both countries can accommodate their readings of the past while preserving practical cooperation.
In addition, the constitutional incorporation of the Great Steppe narrative reflects Kazakhstan’s broader effort to define itself within a changing Eurasian environment. Invoking history can strengthen state legitimacy and reinforce national cohesion, but only up to a point. A stronger historical narrative cannot by itself address structural challenges facing Kazakhstan, including economic diversification, institutional development, demographic balance and the need to maintain strategic autonomy amidst geopolitical tensions.
While Kazakhstan was initially concerned with asserting its sovereignty in relation to neighbouring countries during the post-Soviet era, the challenges it faces today are even greater. Western interventionism in Eurasia is becoming an increasingly tangible reality. Having borders with Russia and China, the two primary geopolitical adversaries of the Collective West, Kazakhstan must anticipate various forms of foreign pressure aimed at instrumentalising it against its neighbours. The pursuit of a profound historical identity must therefore be balanced with a foreign policy robust enough to guarantee the country’s autonomy at all levels—not only vis-à-vis its neighbours but also in relation to more distant actors.
The importance of the current transformation therefore lies not only in the historical references themselves, but in how they interact with Kazakhstan’s contemporary political choices. The revival of the Golden Horde legacy is part of a broader process of national consolidation, but its long-term significance will depend on whether it can coexist with both domestic demands and a pragmatic foreign policy in the post-Soviet world.
The Great Steppe has become a symbol through which Kazakhstan legitimately interprets its past and projects its future. Whether this process becomes a source of regional competition or a framework for broader Eurasian integration will depend on how historical memory is combined with contemporary statecraft.
The Valdai Discussion Club was established in 2004. It is named after Lake Valdai, which is located close to Veliky Novgorod, where the Club’s first meeting took place.
Please visit the firm link to site
