Skip to content

Kazakhstan’s legal experts push for constitutional secularism reform

A bold call to rewrite Kazakhstan’s constitution could redefine its secular identity. Would stricter laws protect equality—or spark new debates?

The image shows a map of Kazakhstan with the flag of the country in the center. The map is green...
The image shows a map of Kazakhstan with the flag of the country in the center. The map is green and yellow in color, with a white background.

A prominent legal figure in Kazakhstan has called for clearer constitutional rules on religion and government. Seryk Akylbai, chairman of the Kazakhstan Union of Lawyers, proposed enshrining the separation of religion and state in the country’s Constitution. He argues the move would protect equal treatment for all believers while reinforcing legal stability.

Akylbai’s proposal builds on existing secular principles already present in Kazakhstan’s Constitution. The change would not restrict religious rights but instead provide stricter legal definitions. This aims to prevent vague interpretations in an area often seen as sensitive.

The push for constitutional clarity comes as President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has repeatedly emphasised secularism as a cornerstone of governance. In a multiethnic society, the state must remain neutral, acting as an impartial arbiter to maintain civil peace. Many countries, including Germany, Turkey, and Kyrgyzstan, have already embedded similar principles in their constitutions. Examples abroad show varying approaches to secularism. The US enforces separation through the First Amendment, while France’s laïcité model is stricter than most European states. Armenia’s Constitution also explicitly mandates a division between church and state. Akylbai’s plan seeks to align Kazakhstan with these global standards, ensuring the state remains independent of religious influence.

If adopted, the amendment would formalise Kazakhstan’s secular identity in law. It would also reduce ambiguity in how religion interacts with public institutions. The proposal now awaits further discussion among lawmakers and constitutional experts.

Read also:

Latest