Rethinking Schooling for the 21st Century

(or pseudo-) democratic facade (Rumer, 2005, p. 3; see also Chapter 2, Figure
2.6). Kyrgyzstan, often labelled as a case of ‘soft authoritarianism’ or as a ‘semiconsolidated
authoritarian regime’ (Freedom House, 2017), is widely seen as
the most open and democratic of the Central Asian states. Kazakhstan and
Uzbekistan, politically and economically the region’s most important states,
have been governed by highly centralised political regimes for over a quarter of
a century. In this context, Mongolia has been seen by international observers as
‘an island or oasis of democracy’ in the heart of Asia (Fish, 2001; Torbati, 2016).
At the advent of the post-Soviet transition, Mongolia was the only country in the
region to choose a parliamentary system of government. But the institutional
consolidation of this system remains far from fully accomplished. Entrenched
corruption and cronyism in the government and political parties have eroded
the rule of law and public trust in political institutions (Bertelsmann Stiftung,
2016b; OECD, 2015b). In 2010, Kyrgyzstan also adopted a semi-presidential,
semi-parliamentary system. Earlier, Kyrgyzstan had been the least politically
stable country in the region: public protests against corruption, clientelism
and the deterioration of livelihoods overthrew two presidents: Akayev in 2005
and Bakiyev in 2010. In contrast to Akayev’s largely peaceful overthrow, clashes
between protestors and Bakiyev’s forces in 2010 led to violence and the death of
nearly one hundred civilians (Esengul, Mamaev and Yefimova-Trilling, 2014). The
share of the industrial sector in the Kyrgyz economy declined from 62 per cent in
1990 to 16.1 per cent in 2004, with the fall blamed partly on lack of finances and
deficiencies of managerial competence and probity, combined — as elsewhere in
the region — with the disintegration of the socialist command economy (Kasymov
and Nikonova, 2006). Kyrgyzstan’s economic and political volatility help explain
why the influence of the international donor community has been especially
strong there (see the next section).
These diverse political environments have influenced the direction, pace and
breadth of education reforms. As noted above, however, the Central Asian
states share in common the significant fact that nationhood was essentially
a novelty thrust upon them by the dissolution of the USSR. The national
delimitation process of the Soviet Union in the 1920s had ‘established them
as distinct national territorial units, albeit with their
sovereignty highly circumscribed’ (Isaacs and Polese,
2015, p. 372); but, unlike the Baltic states, until 1991 they
were politically quiescent and lacked strong popular
movements for independence. An important difference
between Mongolia and the Central Asian states is that,
despite their common subjection to Soviet rule (or
strong ‘guidance’), the former had long enjoyed both
the trappings of a sovereign state and a strongly distinct
identity, and national narrative when the geopolitical
earthquake struck in 1991. But in Mongolia, as across
The Central Asian
states share in
common the
significant fact that
nationhood was
essentially a novelty
thrust upon them by
the dissolution of the
USSR
Rethinking Schooling for the 21 st Century:
The State of Education for Peace, Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship in Asia
173