VZCZCXRO6791
RR RUEHDBU RUEHLN RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHKB #1000/01 2220400
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 100400Z AUG 07
FM AMEMBASSY BAKU
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3647
INFO RUCNCIS/CIS COLLECTIVE
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE 0642

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