When Education Meets Politics: Rethinking Nation-Building in the Kurdistan Region
Written by: Adnan Shwan, Ph.D. in Political Science and Lecturer at Soran University, Faculty of Law, Political Science and Management, Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
Any opinions expressed in this, or any other blog post on this website, are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of the Education, Peace and Politics organisation.
When Education Meets Politics
On 24 January 2026, the Ministry of Education in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) issued a directive requiring all schools to dedicate their first lesson to developments in Rojava, the Kurdish-led autonomous region in north-eastern Syria, formally governed through the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES). At the time, escalating conflict between Syrian government forces and Kurdish-led forces in the region had generated considerable concern across Kurdish communities, including in the KRI. Students across the KRI organized activities calling for peace, ceasefire, and respect for Kurdish rights, exemplifying how education can serve as a vehicle for political solidarity and national consciousness. Yet this single act raises a deeper question: What is the proper role of education in nation-building? It also raises a more critical one: who defines the national issues around which schools are expected to build solidarity, and how much space are students given to question as well as affirm the narratives presented to them?
As political scientists have long recognized, education is never politically neutral. Schools and government institutions are key agents of political socialization, the process by which individuals acquire the values, beliefs, and attitudes that shape their relationship to the political system. When schools do not fulfil this role, other actors – political parties, populist figures, social media, the press, and religious institutions – may fill the space, but these channels do not necessarily socialize individuals on the basis of shared civic or national concerns. The important question for the KRI, therefore, is not simply whether education contributes to nation-building. It already does. The more difficult question is what kind of national identity and political community education helps to create.
Education and the Politics of Nation-Building
Teaching National Identity is not the same as Building It
Education plays a vital role in the production of what Benedict Anderson (1983) called “imagined communities”: shared senses of belonging that connect citizens over geographical and social distances. Schools transmit collective memory and create pride in national symbols by teaching history, literature, and culture. This is not just a matter of rote facts, but a shared story that gives citizens a sense of continuity and purpose. Yet national identity is not neutral or uncontested. Decisions about which histories are taught, which memories are preserved, and which political struggles are presented as “national” inevitably privilege particular understandings of the nation. The question is therefore not only whether schools produce national identity, but whose identity they reproduce and who has the authority to define it.
What is observed in the KRI in this regard can be characterized as a “gap between theory and practice”. For example, despite curricular attention to Kurdish history and national issues, education in the KRI plays a disappointingly limited role in political and social development. The core problem is structural: most curricula are designed as content-based rather than learning-based systems. Students experience the material as something to be memorized for examinations rather than internalized as part of their worldview. Classroom practices exacerbate this problem as well. Teachers prioritize completing prescribed curricula over engaging students in discussions of contemporary social and political issues. Large class sizes and the widespread use of two-shift school systems further constrain opportunities for critical thinking and civic engagement. Therefore, education cannot fully serve as an effective channel for political and civic education or for fostering a deeper understanding of national identity, collective memory, and shared social and national concerns.
The weakness of national identity formation can be considered in relation to concrete cases. In conflict-affected areas such as Palkana, Topzawa, Sargaran, Daqouq, and Makhmour – where Kurdish land and identity face continuing pressures – there has been relatively limited public mobilization despite extensive media coverage. It would be too simple to treat the absence of mobilization as evidence that education has not succeed in this regard: political participation is shaped by many factors. Nevertheless, these cases raise an important question about the difference between knowing a national history and understanding oneself as an active participant in contemporary political life. Nor should successful political education be measured by whether citizens mobilize in support of a predetermined national cause. Its purpose should be to develop political agency: the capacity to decide whether, when, and how to participate.
One particularly urgent issue for educational institutions is the distinction between national or civic matters and the performance of governments, institutions, and political parties. Citizens have the right to criticize authorities and political parties, and democratic citizenship requires the capacity to do so. But this distinction also raises a deeper question: who defines “national interests” in the first place? Education should not simply teach loyalty to a fixed conception of the nation. It should enable young people to examine competing claims made in the name of the nation, distinguish collective belonging from party or governmental authority, and make their own informed political judgments.
Building a Shared Society
Schools bring together people from different backgrounds, creating opportunities to work and learn across ethnic, religious, class, and geographical lines. Students learning with peers from different communities can develop mutual understanding and respect beyond parochial loyalty. This social mixing is an important part of how education contributes to social cohesion and nation-building.
In the KRI, however, schools have a weak role in building this form of social cohesion, partly because political and social dimensions remain limited in everyday educational practice. Education is inherently political, but this does not mean that schools should transmit predetermined political positions. Rather, it means recognizing that decisions about curriculum, identity, citizenship, language, history, and participation are themselves political. The challenge is to create educational spaces in which students can engage critically with these questions rather than simply receive answers to them.
According to my research in the field of education and my observations in this area, there are few organized activities dedicated to fostering peaceful coexistence between schools and communities. For example, there are limited opportunities for students from different communities to visit one another’s religious institutions, learn about each other’s religions and cultures, and develop relationships across social boundaries. Such encounters could make social cohesion something students experience rather than simply something they are taught.
When schools are isolated from political discussion and civic engagement, their socialization function is significantly weakened, limiting students’ opportunities to develop critical thinking, constructive dialogue, and tolerance. In the absence of these educational spaces, political parties, populist figures, media outlets, and religious institutions may move to fill the resulting vacuum. However, these alternative channels do not necessarily foster a balanced sense of civic awareness or promote a shared understanding of national interests and responsibilities. As a result, the political and civic role of schools gradually diminishes, weakening their contribution to social cohesion and ultimately undermining the broader process of nation building.
Another factor that weakens social cohesion in the KRI is the privatization of education. The growth of private education has further complicated nation-building efforts. Historically, students from different social backgrounds – rich and poor, children of officials and ordinary citizens – were more likely to receive their education within the same institutions. Today, wealthy families increasingly withdraw into prestigious private institutions, where their children may acquire different skills and better employment opportunities. This segregation can exacerbate inequality and weaken the shared educational experiences through which a common civic or national identity might be fostered. Since private education is a global phenomenon that cannot simply be eliminated, the challenge lies in improving the quality and structure of public education so that the expansion of private provision does not create increasingly separate educational experiences for different parts of society.
A similar paradox can be seen in the proliferation of universities across the Kurdistan Region. Previously, students from Sulaymaniyah studied in Erbil and Duhok, while students from Duhok studied in Sulaymaniyah. This geographic mixing promoted cultural interaction and strengthened relationships between young people from different parts of the region. Today, each area has its own universities and students have less reason to leave their home communities. Expanding access to higher education is clearly positive, but one unintended consequence may be the weakening of the geographical and social mixing that universities once provided. Nation-building, in other words, happens not only through what students learn, but through whom they encounter while learning it.
Democratic Citizenship Requires Democratic Educational Spaces
Civic education equips citizens with knowledge of democratic principles, human rights, and civic responsibilities. International research on civic learning emphasizes not only knowledge but also analytical skills, democratic values, participation, and engagement. The Council of Europe similarly emphasizes knowledge, skills, attitudes, democratic rights and responsibilities, diversity, and active participation. For nation-building, this matters because a shared civic culture cannot be produced simply by telling students what democracy is; young people also need opportunities to practise dialogue, disagreement, and participation.
In the KRI, efforts exist to promote democratic principles and values through education; for example, Civic Education and Human Rights curricula have been introduced. However, several structural factors prevent schools from effectively educating democratic and politically aware citizens. These include the nature and design of curricula, the presence of some statements within textbooks that do not serve peaceful coexistence, and the lack of a sufficiently open environment in schools to foster critical thinking. This exposes an important contradiction: democratic citizenship cannot simply be taught as curriculum content. It must also be experienced through education.
Additional challenges include the use of traditional teaching methods, a lack of space for dialogue, and the personal backgrounds of some teachers who themselves do not believe in democratic principles, modern teaching methodologies, or student-centered learning. Furthermore, overcrowded classrooms and evaluating “good students” strictly on the basis of grades rather than defining a good student as someone with an open mind, critical thinking skills, and the ability to engage freely in dialogue hinder progress.
These factors, alongside the widespread expansion of private schools and universities, can contribute to a profound sense of injustice, particularly among low-income students who cannot afford the same quality of schooling or higher education. This perceived injustice can weaken citizenship and national belonging. The issue is therefore not simply whether schools teach a shared national identity, but whether students experience the educational system itself as fair enough to make that shared identity meaningful.
Inequality is Also a Nation-Building Problem
Education is often described as a “ladder of mobility”, providing opportunities for people to improve their socioeconomic position irrespective of the circumstances of their birth. States that make quality schooling available to all can help reduce intergenerational poverty and social stratification. But education can also reproduce inequality when access to high-quality institutions, technologies, languages, and skills depends heavily on family income or geography. Inequality in education is therefore not only an economic problem; it is also a political problem for nation-building and social cohesion.
Regarding the KRI, there is currently an effort to provide equal digital access to education for everyone through educational platforms and applications. However, this creates another challenge: not all students are financially able to afford internet access. Additionally, families with multiple school-aged children cannot afford iPads, tablets, or computers for each child. Furthermore, some students live in remote villages where internet service does not reliably reach; creating a dynamic where access to the internet and digital devices deepens inequality between rich and poor, as well as urban and rural students.
On the other hand, because public schools and universities in the KRI do not match the quality of private institutions, wealthy students attend private schools and universities where they acquire valuable skills and master multiple international languages. This gives them a clear advantage in securing employment opportunities later on. Conversely, less privileged students in public institutions are often not exposed to modern skills, AI, or foreign languages. Consequently, their economic situation fails to improve as they struggle to find jobs. This reality sharpens class divisions and amplifies feelings of injustice, posing a significant threat to nation-building, social cohesion, and political integration.
What Kind of Nation Should Education Build?
Despite these challenges, the Ministry of Education continues striving to address national and ethnic issues. Curricula emphasize national subjects – the lives of Kurdish revolutionaries, national poetry, and the right to self-determination. However, the teaching system remains anchored in rote learning, with students memorizing lessons while teachers dominate classroom discourse and current issues receive inadequate attention. The Rojava initiative shows that schools can connect education to contemporary questions of peace, Kurdish rights, and collective solidarity. But it also illustrates the political power involved when educational authorities decide which contemporary issues should enter every classroom.
The KRI must therefore rethink its approach to educational investment and political socialization. The central question is not simply whether schools should strengthen Kurdish national consciousness, but how they can do so while protecting critical judgment, pluralism, and democratic participation. Kurdish national identity and democratic citizenship can reinforce one another, but they can also exist in tension. An education system committed to both must do more than transmit a shared national narrative: it must give young people the knowledge and freedom to question that narrative, recognize the different identities and experiences contained within it, and challenge those who claim to speak in the national interest.
The initiative taken by the Ministry of Education in relation to Rojava demonstrates the capacity of schools to shape collective memory, identity, and shared political concerns. The lesson should extend beyond a single day or a single national issue. For schools to help young people engage with national questions without becoming subservient to media, party politics, or any single political narrative, they must place greater emphasis on social justice, democracy, peaceful coexistence, and critical thinking. The question, then, is not whether education should be involved in nation-building – it already is. The more important question is what kind of nation educational institutions help to produce, and whether young people are given the freedom and capacity to participate in deciding what their shared political future should become.
Any opinions expressed in this, or any other blog post on this website, are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of the Education, Peace and Politics organisation.