Gulzat Isamatova, who holds the position of Minister of Science, Higher Education and Innovations of the Kyrgyz Republic, gave her first significant interview to the publication 24.kg, in which she highlighted the key directions of the upcoming reforms.
— Gulzat Tynibekovna, it must be acknowledged that for many you remain a mystery. Your name is not so widely known that even in our editorial office some journalists could not immediately recall your surname. Let’s start with general questions.
— Of course. I realize that I am not a public figure, and that’s okay. I am not an artist or a politician, but just a person who needs time to analyze the situation and address issues related to personnel and structure. Now I am ready for discussion.
— You hold a PhD in Political Science, a Master's in International Law, and are a specialist in Higher Education Pedagogy. This is quite a unique combination.
— Some say that I studied too long (laughs). However, for me, education is not just a collection of diplomas, but a tool. Political science helps to understand the workings of institutions, international law — the rules of the game, and higher pedagogy — how a person learns. A minister who has no understanding of pedagogy will be a theorist, and one who does not understand politics will be an idealist. It is necessary to know both.
— Society currently has high expectations for changes in education and science. In your opinion, where should reforms begin?
— With honesty. We have viewed education for too long as a set of bureaucratic processes: programs, reports, and indicators. However, education is not just an industry; it is the foundation of future society, a kind of framework. If we do not define what kind of highly educated Kyrgyz citizen we want to see in 10-15 years, any reforms will be superficial.
— Many claim that the education system is lagging behind global changes. Do you agree with this statement?
— I partially agree. The problem lies not only in speed but also in logic. The world has become uncertain, while the education system continues to prepare students for predictable paths. Today, it is important not only to transfer knowledge but also to develop the ability to think, adapt, and work in conditions of uncertainty. This is more complex than simply updating textbooks, but without it, we will reproduce vulnerability instead of progress.
— Vice Prime Minister Edil Baisalov announced the launch of accelerated modernization of universities. Is this related to keeping pace with changes in the world?
— The essence of this process is both simple and complex. We must stop perceiving the university as a budget institution with a class schedule and start viewing it as a center for creating knowledge, technologies, and human capital. A university is not just a building; it is a focal point for the future of the country.
Our task is to transform universities into places that attract talent, intellectual hubs that will shape the economy of 2035-2040. This is not just a slogan but a management task.
— It sounds promising, but the results of university autonomy raise many questions. In some cases, there is progress; in others, there is an expectation for instructions. Don’t you think the reform is stalling?
— Reforms never go smoothly. Autonomy is a process of maturation. Not everyone is ready for this responsibility. The presidential decree on expanded autonomy is a historic step. For the first time, universities are given trust: manage finances, build structures, open new programs, and attract partners. Some universities have understood this, while others, unfortunately, are waiting for instructions. But the time for waiting is over.
— That sounds quite strict. Are personnel changes expected?
— If autonomy is used as a pretext for inaction, then yes, personnel decisions will become necessary. We will not finance the imitation of reforms.
However, the other extreme is also unacceptable: under the pretext of autonomy, one cannot violate the rights of students or the principles of transparency. Autonomy does not imply arbitrariness but requires maturity. It is important for universities to be able to independently form budgets, flexibly manage salaries, open new programs, attract international partners, and create startups. The state remains the guarantor of standards.
— Critics argue that autonomy may lead to commercialization and a decline in the quality of education.
— I believe that commercialization is not a negative phenomenon. It is the ability to turn knowledge into economic benefit. However, of course, there are risks: underfunding, lack of personnel, and a digital divide.
Therefore, we are also launching a KPI model for assessing universities, revising licensing, creating a "University — Startup Factory" program, and developing venture mechanisms.
Additionally, universities will be able to attract loans, use leasing, open accounts in commercial banks, and manage income from innovative activities. These are already elements of a "mature" economy.
— It is known that you are also initiating a reform of science and the National Academy of Sciences. Is this a separate process?
— No, it is part of a unified process. Our science is currently fragmented: there is an academic sector, a university sector, and an industrial sector. We observe low flexibility, weak commercialization, and dependence on state funding.
The draft presidential decree on reforming scientific activities proposes significant financial autonomy for research institutes. They will be able to attract international grants, create startups, and form targeted capital funds, flexibly compensate scientists' work. We are transitioning from a "passive budget" model to a sustainable development model.
The modern academy of sciences should address systemic gaps in the economy, not just report on conducted research.
— Science is often perceived as a closed and detached sphere from society.
— Modern science must be socially significant; otherwise, it will become marginalized. We must restore the status of science as a source of solutions, not just publications. This requires new communication with society, business, and the state; otherwise, the scientific potential will not be realized.
— In the name of your ministry, there is the word "innovation." How do you understand this term: technologies or something more?
— Innovation is not just startups and laboratories. It is the ability of society to change without destruction. Sometimes innovation is not technology but a new way of organizing a school, university, or scientific environment. For me, innovation is a bridge between knowledge and real life, not an end in itself.
— Are you ready for resistance from the system?
— Any reform touches the interests of various parties. Therefore, resistance is inevitable, and it is already manifesting. But I have a blank check from the president, and that is the main thing. I never wage war; I engage in dialogue. It can be tough and reasoned, but it is dialogue. Our goal is not to destroy the system but to modernize it.
— In conclusion, why should people remember your name?
— If in a few years, a generation of young scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers emerges in Kyrgyzstan who will say, "At that time, the system changed," even without references to specific names, that will be enough. I am confident that Kyrgyzstan deserves an intellectual breakthrough, and we will achieve it.
