In a recent article, The Astana Times highlights that Kazakhstan’s optimism fuels its resilience and progress, empowering the nation to overcome challenges and seize new opportunities on its path to sustainable development and global integration, The Caspian Post reprints the item.
Kazakhstan is often described as a “transitional” state, neither a poor nor a wealthy society, neither Eastern nor Western in culture, but rather a blend of codes, where young people listen to pop music and respect their grandmothers, speak English, and go to the mosque. It is, according to empirical data, a society marked by private optimism and public skepticism. It is precisely in this in-betweenness that complex societal attitudes emerge, one of which is a collective optimism about the country’s future, despite criticism voiced on social media.
Optimism doesn’t always mean satisfaction with the present, but it reflects whether people believe in the possibility of progress or whether they retreat into themselves.
Why does this matter? Because people who believe that better days lie ahead tend to work more willingly, study more effectively, and think in terms of “what can I improve?”
Secondly, expectations shape behavior: if most people believe that nothing will change, then they end up living accordingly. And finally, optimism is a strategic resource of the country; it can’t be written into budgets or laws, but without it, reforming society is impossible.
Survey findings
That’s why the Kazakh Institute for Strategic Studies (KazISS) regularly asks people about their five-year outlook. We believe it is crucial to understand how citizens perceive the country’s future. In other words, for us, this question carries more weight than just statistics.
We are interested in the emotional state of society: what does it feel like to live here today? Because one’s view of the future is not just an opinion, it is an internal image a person draws in their mind when they look ahead.
It is also important to note that we don’t ask about the state but about the country, which people intuitively associate with land and homeland. This means their answers tend to reflect something broader than just current politics.
Here’s what we are seeing in one of the recent KazISS surveys.
- Two-thirds of the population (60.8%) view the country’s development prospects over the next five years positively;
- Another third (31.4%) hold a neutral view;
- And 7.8% of respondents see the country’s future negatively.
What typically shapes a respondent’s answer?
In most cases, people respond quickly and intuitively, drawing on a mix of personal values, emotional background, and social norms.
They answer based on their own lived experiences and everyday observations. One person might have noticed a new school built in their neighborhood, or their son found a job, or their pension increased slightly.
All of this is subconsciously compared to previous years, to neighbors and even to neighboring countries. Life is moving forward, there is work, the children are studying, and there haven’t been any major upheavals. And in our region, that already counts for a lot.
This is where a kind of psychological projection comes into play: “If things are getting a little better for me, then maybe the country is doing better too.” That perception, in turn, helps shape the emotional background, a feeling of either stability or instability.
This isn’t about evaluating the economy or politics in the strict sense. It is more about a feeling: is the world around me becoming safer and more predictable? For example, are prices, groceries, and exchange rates stable? If that sense of stability is missing, the response is likely to be less optimistic.
Private optimism vs. public skepticism
A few words to support the idea of private optimism and public skepticism. If social media is a space of emotion, then surveys are a space of rationalization and social norms. Restraint isn’t valued on social media, what matters there is reaction. And reactions are more often triggered not by arguments but by emotion: outrage, frustration, or inspiration.
The higher the emotional intensity of a blogger’s post, the greater the reach because attention functions as a kind of currency. To avoid getting lost in the feed, bloggers are compelled to speak louder and with more flair.
Of course, emotional expression doesn’t necessarily mean superficiality. It is simply a different form of engagement, one shaped by the logic of the digital environment.
The goal here was simply to show that social media and sociological surveys operate in different languages. In fact, they represent entirely different worlds.
Social media creates the illusion of representativeness, but in reality, it mostly reflects the voices of young and often critical citizens. It is this group that tends to shape the perception of widespread negativity.
Representative surveys, on the other hand, include those who don’t scream. They simply live, observe, and quietly draw conclusions.
Older generations, rural residents, and politically disengaged urban citizens tend to value stability, dislike chaos, and are less inclined to voice public criticism. Yet they hold firm and consistent beliefs.
How different metrics affect one’s outlook
How can we explain the dominance of positive and cautious (neutral) perceptions about the country’s development prospects over the next five years? This can be clarified through correlational analysis.
By gender: Men and women view the country’s future almost equally, though men are slightly more optimistic.
By type of settlement: Whether a person lives in a city or a rural area has little impact on how they perceive the future. The difference exists but is minor. We can cautiously say that the farther one is from urban centers, the slightly more pessimistic their outlook on the country’s prospects.
By age: There is a weak positive correlation. While the link is subtle, it is slightly stronger than the correlations with gender or type of settlement.
On average, older people tend to view Kazakhstan’s future more optimistically than younger respondents. This may be due to greater tolerance for change among older generations or simply a reflection of their life stage. At 60 years and older, people are generally less burdened by career pressures or mortgages, which may allow for a more relaxed outlook. Younger people, as a rule, tend to have higher expectations and are more sensitive to whether their dreams and plans align with reality. But overall, both the younger and older generations share a similar level of belief in the country’s future.
Marital status has virtually no impact on how people assess the country’s future, as this kind of outlook reflects a civic attitude rather than personal circumstances.
The correlation is extremely weak. Overall, there is a slight increase in optimism from those who are formally married to those who are widowed, though this result is questionable and likely represents statistical noise.
Education has almost no impact on how people assess the country’s future. We observe that individuals across various educational levels perceive Kazakhstan’s five-year development prospects similarly.
This suggests the presence of a broader atmosphere of trust or loyalty, where, regardless of formal education, citizens tend to rely more on personal or normative beliefs. It may also indicate that hopes for the future are shaped independently of one’s educational background.
United in perceptions
Thus, we can see that perceptions of the country’s future are almost unaffected by gender, place of residence, age, marital status, or education level.
What does this tell us? That hope, cautious optimism, and belief in the future are common traits among a majority of Kazakhstan’s citizens. Even if someone experiences anxiety or dissatisfaction in daily life, when asked about the country’s future, they tend to engage a more rational mindset driven by a desire to believe and a deeply rooted preference for stability.
All these point to a high degree of shared expectations and sociocultural cohesion. a values-based unity within society.
Public optimism also serves as evidence of the gradual formation of a national identity among Kazakhstan’s citizens.
Thus, the findings and analysis presented here suggest that Kazakhstan’s society is not fragmented but rather quite synchronized, including in its fundamental expectations about the country’s future. And in a transitional society, that is a powerful resource.
