For two consecutive years now, locusts on the Kazakhstani political agenda have been reminding themselves not only of wrecking on farmlands. Now locusts are the main theme of controversial reputation stories, in the center of which Deputy Prime Minister Serik Zhumangarin invariably appears.
It all started in 2024, when amid a locusts invasion, an official uttered the phrase in the Mazhilis: "Locust is a halal product." In the context of farmers' concerns and risks to the harvest, this statement sounded interesting, to put it mildly. A storm began in the information field, not only among farmers, but also on social networks where the statement became the subject of ridicule and irony.
Zhumangarin later explained that his words were a kind of "stuffing" to "amuse journalists" and stressed that he had never suggested citizens eating locusts. However, the sediment remained.
In 2025, when the situation with the insect invasion was repeated again, the topic returned to the public space. The journalistic question about "halal locusts" once again irritated Zhumangarin. Although he repeated that he had not called for eating locusts, the reputational trail of last year's statement proved to be stable. Moreover, in order to defuse the situation, official allowed a new controversial wording: "Do whatever you want," which in the eyes of the public only reinforced the image of a frivolous approach to a serious problem.
"When did I suggest eating locusts? That's another theme. Did I say that you should eat it? I said that locust is a halal product. Do whatever you want," the official replied. (quote from Tengrinews)
In fact, the statement about "halal locusts" "haunts" Zhumangarin like locusts haunt crops. Paradoxically, it was precisely because of an unsuccessful joke that the official found himself not in the center of a discussion about the success of pest control (and there were - the purchase of chemicals, agrodrones, early budget allocation), but in the center of an online discussion full of irony and doubts about the competence of the government. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the narratives proposed by Zhumangarin in response failed to change the focus of the discussion. He did not present a new, positive context in which the topic of locust control would be associated with, let’s say, a scientific approach, sustainable management or innovative methods of agricultural protection.
Communication on highly social topics always requires maximum precision, empathy for victims, and responsibility. It's important to hear and feel what's behind people's concerns. It should also be remembered that any statement requires a preliminary assessment of the context: public sentiment, risks, background. Irony, ambiguity, and a defensive tone in the wording are unacceptable. The audience expects from an official, first of all, responsibility and the desire to conduct a dialogue.
In the modern media space, a word, especially one uttered publicly and on an acute social topic with irony or in jest, lives longer than the intention with which it was said. And if this word is not followed by a clear proactive narrative, it turns into a meme. And although the Deputy Prime Minister continues to assure that measures have been taken, crops are protected, and the situation is under control, his phrase from last year continues to be heard in the halls of parliament, at press conferences, and in social media posts. The story of the locusts is a vivid example of how one remark can "fly in" over and over, making a reputation more vulnerable, if there were a reason.
It all started in 2024, when amid a locusts invasion, an official uttered the phrase in the Mazhilis: "Locust is a halal product." In the context of farmers' concerns and risks to the harvest, this statement sounded interesting, to put it mildly. A storm began in the information field, not only among farmers, but also on social networks where the statement became the subject of ridicule and irony.
Zhumangarin later explained that his words were a kind of "stuffing" to "amuse journalists" and stressed that he had never suggested citizens eating locusts. However, the sediment remained.
In 2025, when the situation with the insect invasion was repeated again, the topic returned to the public space. The journalistic question about "halal locusts" once again irritated Zhumangarin. Although he repeated that he had not called for eating locusts, the reputational trail of last year's statement proved to be stable. Moreover, in order to defuse the situation, official allowed a new controversial wording: "Do whatever you want," which in the eyes of the public only reinforced the image of a frivolous approach to a serious problem.
"When did I suggest eating locusts? That's another theme. Did I say that you should eat it? I said that locust is a halal product. Do whatever you want," the official replied. (quote from Tengrinews)
In fact, the statement about "halal locusts" "haunts" Zhumangarin like locusts haunt crops. Paradoxically, it was precisely because of an unsuccessful joke that the official found himself not in the center of a discussion about the success of pest control (and there were - the purchase of chemicals, agrodrones, early budget allocation), but in the center of an online discussion full of irony and doubts about the competence of the government. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the narratives proposed by Zhumangarin in response failed to change the focus of the discussion. He did not present a new, positive context in which the topic of locust control would be associated with, let’s say, a scientific approach, sustainable management or innovative methods of agricultural protection.
Communication on highly social topics always requires maximum precision, empathy for victims, and responsibility. It's important to hear and feel what's behind people's concerns. It should also be remembered that any statement requires a preliminary assessment of the context: public sentiment, risks, background. Irony, ambiguity, and a defensive tone in the wording are unacceptable. The audience expects from an official, first of all, responsibility and the desire to conduct a dialogue.
In the modern media space, a word, especially one uttered publicly and on an acute social topic with irony or in jest, lives longer than the intention with which it was said. And if this word is not followed by a clear proactive narrative, it turns into a meme. And although the Deputy Prime Minister continues to assure that measures have been taken, crops are protected, and the situation is under control, his phrase from last year continues to be heard in the halls of parliament, at press conferences, and in social media posts. The story of the locusts is a vivid example of how one remark can "fly in" over and over, making a reputation more vulnerable, if there were a reason.