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