Kazakhstan’s creative industry faces new government controls from April 20, imposing updated requirements on artists and event organisers. These measures arrive as the country's music scene enjoys a "golden age" with new talents gaining international recognition.
President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev signed creative industry amendments into law on February 18, primarily affecting mass event organisation. These provisions, from Article 9-1 of the law on culture, introduce additional restrictions on cultural performances.
Vice Minister of Culture and Information Yegeniy Kochetov stated authorities intended to dissuade artists from performing "unlawful" songs. Regulations forbid "content contrary to accepted societal norms, morals and ethics," a wording that allows for broad interpretation.
Explicit bans also target material concerning suicide, drugs, or pornography. Kochetov recommended artists "not to use those specific songs" if their content touches upon such themes to avoid issues.
The new requirements also impact foreign performers, whose events may be banned or suspended if their material references prohibited themes. Organisers must coordinate with local authorities 30 days prior for international artist events.
This increasing state control contradicts Kazakhstan's official support for its creative industry, a sector lauded for its "golden age." Local artists, like Yenlik who joined German music platform COLORS, have gained international recognition during this period.
This "golden age" has seen artists speak out on social issues, notably the bloody suppression of Qandy Qantar in January 2022. The music industry now fears these measures will negatively affect creative freedom and the scene's future.
Aizatulla Hussein, founder of Ozen, argues the industry's rise stems from its "sincerity and an unregulated framework." He fears increased government oversight could undermine this organic growth and stifle genuine expression.
Hussein warned a lack of consultation could create a "significant rift" with youth culture, stressing the "thin line" between artistic licence and propaganda. He argued restrictions should apply only to public platforms, not live events, which impact creative freedom and audience civil rights.