A LOOK AT AZERBAIJAN'S CONTROVERSIAL DRAFT LAW ON

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BAKU 001000 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O.12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV KDEM SCUL KOCI AJ SUBJECT: A LOOK AT AZERBAIJAN'S CONTROVERSIAL DRAFT LAW ON EDUCATION SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED; NOT FOR INTERNET DISTRIBUTION. ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: Azerbaijan's draft law on education remains mired in controversy. Although key Members of Parliament (MPs) predicted that the new law was scheduled to be discussed in the 2006-2007 Parliamentary session, debate has been deferred until the fall of ¶2007. The key sticking point appears to be proposed changes to the post-graduate system that would bring Azerbaijan into compliance with the Council of Europe's Bologna Process. MP - and President Aliyev`s uncle - Jalal Aliyev has vociferously opposed these changes. Education experts complain that the draft law does not address corruption or problems in education financing, nor does it create independent accreditation bodies. While the Ministry of Education has consulted with a few student groups on the draft law, no independent NGOs or education experts have been given the chance to engage with members of the Science and Education Commission or with other relevant GOAJ officials. The case of this draft law is another example of the need to include the Azerbaijani public in the draft law process. END SUMMARY ¶2. (SBU) Azerbaijan's Parliament has been working on a new draft education law since 1998. The was even an attempt to present a new draft law for Parliament's discussion, but it only passed one reading and was turned in to the commission. Since that a rigid split remains in Parliament, and the current education system is still based on the law adopted in 1992. After the November 2005 Parliamentary Elections, many hoped that the newly-elected Members of Parliament (MPs) would be more proactive than their predecessors in addressing the problems plaguing the education system. Several attempts have been made to adopt a new law, but the debate over each draft has resulted in serious clashes between competing GOAJ power centers. Finally, the parliament was expected to debate the draft legislation in its 2006-2007 sessions, but debate has been deferred until the fall 2007 session. According to prominent education experts, a new law is not required to accomplish the education system changes that are needed; rather, they believe that the existing legislation can be amended. The most pressing changes are the reforms necessary for Azerbaijan to conform to the Council of Europe's Bologna Process education standards, which these experts feel can be accomplished through amendments. However, some pro-government MPs prefer to address these reforms in a completely new draft. This difference of opinion also has a political component; the current law on education remains one of the few laws that has not been updated since former President Heydar Aliyev came to power. The existing law was adopted during the tenure of former President Abulfaz Elchibey. ¶3. (SBU) The most contentious point of the current draft is related to post-graduate education. Most expected that the current draft would fully comply with the Bologna Process requirements. Specifically, full compliance would include eliminating the current multi-step post-graduate system in favor of the more internationally consistent two-step post-graduate education, equivalent to a Master's degree and a Doctorate. Currently, the Azerbaijani system includes an interim step between these, referred to as "Aspirantura," inherited from the Soviet times. (NOTE: There is no equivalent to Aspirantura in the Western education system.) MP Jalal Aliyev (the President's uncle) and several others presented a serious obstacle to the elimination of Aspirantura, arguing that this interim step should remain. Aliyev has been quite active in his opposition, going so far as to publicly ridicule those in the Parliament who supported this change. Most recently, he singled out Science and Education Commission Chair Shamsaddin Hajiyev for proposing this "unreasonable" change. Rumors persist that Aliyev is reacting so adamantly to this issue because he is benefiting from the current system's pervasive corruption. The current draft maintains this interim step, although it is presented under a different name. ¶4. (SBU) Elmina Kazimzade, an education expert and advisor to the President, believes that the current draft was not written by education professionals. Although this draft modernizes the previous law, the authors deferred to the previous law on many issues. It does not provide for the equal education of citizens, nor does it clearly define "inclusive" education. According to Kazimzade, this draft refers to secondary education and it's financing only in a superficial way. It does not outline any systematic measures to counter corruption and does not provide for much-needed independent institutions, such as a separate accreditation body. Kazimzade explained that this draft retains the financial provisions as defined in the current law, meaning that schools are financed by the local executive authorities, as a result making schools overly dependent on the local authorities. Along with numerous legal, technical, and stylistic omissions, Kazimzade said that the current draft does not provide for participatory governance. ¶5. (SBU) Expert on preschool and elementary school education Ulviya Mikayilova expressed her concern about the current draft's unclear explanation of parents' participation in school management. The BAKU 00001000 002 OF 002 draft maintains that parents should participate, but it does not define the role, functions, or authority of parental organizations. In addition, the current draft does not include provisions for financing the institutions that it outlines. Lawyers from the "Anti-Corruption Coalition" NGO found numerous inconsistencies in the terminology and style of the current draft. They believe that many people, likely with backgrounds in economics, drafted different sections of the document, resulting in stylistic dissimilarity of legal and educational terms. ¶6. (SBU) Several NGOs and experts have publicly released specific recommendations regarding substantial issues that they believe are missing in the current draft. First, they maintain that the draft does not provide for a non-governmental entity to be responsible for the accreditation and licensing of universities. It lacks mention of a transparent mechanism to implement the Education Fund proposed in the draft, and does not define the legal role of parents in education management. There is no legal provision regarding education for children with special needs. These experts also believe that a Textbook Approval Board should be the primary decision-maker regarding textbook publishing, and that preschool education should be given a more significant role. ¶7. (SBU) Other experts believe that the current draft has many political undertones. First, they believe that President Ilham Aliyev's administration wants to change the current law simply because it was was adopted under the administration of former President Elchibey, whose party is now in opposition to the GOAJ. Second, some experts feel that the draft diminishes the role of the university admission testing system; this has been a major point of contention between the unpopular Ministry of Education and the very popular independent State Commission on Students' Admission. Finally, experts conclude that the draft supports the interests of certain groups, resulting in serious disadvantages to others. Some expressed concern that even the Ministry of Education has not been given an adequate role in the drafting process of this law. Many experts concluded that adoption of the current draft, which they feel is discriminatory and far from perfect, would be a serious misstep and would further damage the already flawed education system. ¶8. (SBU) COMMENT: In spite of the long wait, the current draft law on education does not adequately address the modern trends and challenges of education; it also does not reflect the real need for transparency and modernized governance of educational institutions, nor does it stipulate equal opportunities for the beneficiaries. Clashes of interests between competing power centers in the GOAJ have left little room for NGOs and independent experts with the necessary experience and expertise to impact the debate. The case of this law shows the real need for the public to be incorporated into the draft law process; we will continue to press the importance of vibrant public debate with our contacts in Parliament and with other levels of the GOAJ. LU