This article presents a critique of both public and private universities in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) from three perspectives: epistemological, social, and political. It offers a critical analysis of how both types of universities function within the same knowledge paradigms, social structures, and political systems. I argue that the so-called “public” universities in Kurdistan are more accurately described as “government universities,” as they do not genuinely reflect public will or participation. Another key argument is that private universities, despite their institutional differences, ultimately operate within the same governmental framework as public universities and have failed to become true alternatives capable of interpreting or representing the public will.
Introduction
Criticism of universities in the KRI, particularly public ones, often provokes defensive reactions—as though critique is an act of hostility rather than an invitation to reflection and reform. However, a serious and effective critique must rest on a coherent methodological foundation. This article employs the framework of Critical Pedagogy, which has specific epistemological, social, and political foundations. From this foundation, the critique is organized into three core sections:
The Knowledge Framework
All universities in the KRI—both public and private—share the same intellectual identity. By intellectual identity, I mean two aspects: (1) the epistemological paradigm that defines the nature of knowledge, and (2) the intellectual value of universities within other societal domains.
Epistemological paradigm
Universities in the KRI, whether public or private, operate within a uniform epistemological paradigm. An epistemological paradigm consists of a set of principles and concepts accepted within an academic community that determine the approach to intellect and inquiry. In this respect, all Kurdish universities define knowledge as information—particularly theoretical, positivist information—which is descriptive and refers to the measurable characteristics of an object, subject, or topic.
While some references to skills and competencies have recently entered academic discourse, these are marginal in practice. Curricula and assessment remain rooted in abstract theoretical constructs, sidelining lived experiences, practical wisdom and capabilities, and context-sensitive knowledge. This paradigm is dominated by technical-rationalist thinking, emphasizing theoretical, measurable, and abstract information over transformative or critical knowledge.
Intellectual role and value of the university
Universities in Kurdistan are primarily diploma-granting institutions. Regardless of where and how the learning process unfolds, the outcome is the same. Learning processes—regardless of their quality—are secondary to the procedural legitimacy of the diploma itself. Trust in diplomas is based more on the institutional reputation and political history of universities than on curricular substance or academic rigor. In fact, we are yet to see an example in the KRI where society—or the job market—has questioned the credibility of a university or its diplomas.
This reinforces a passive, utilitarian view of higher education: its value lies in credentialism, not intellectual or moral development. Public and private universities are identical in this regard, revealing a shared epistemic identity.
The Social Framework
Universities as social institutions
Public and private universities in the KRI are both social institutions, deeply embedded in Kurdish society. This is more so for the main public universities, both because they were established earlier and because they enroll far more students.
Educational systems mirror the broader sociopolitical and socioeconomic structures of the nation. In this sense, universities in the KRI both reflect governance processes (e.g., management systems, bureaucratic hierarchies, legislation, ranking, approval or rejection procedures, etc.) and reproduce the dominant social norms, habits, and values, contributing to the formation of social identity.
Understanding the differences and similarities of public and private universities requires discussing how they shape the formal and informal social and cultural orientations within Kurdish society. These orientations range from language proficiency, the culture of studying, to student-professor relationships, students’ sense of civic responsibility, and the political and cultural activism of both students and faculty.
Differences and similarities in social orientation
To assess the social impact of universities, we must ask:
While these questions require careful investigation, some general observations can be made:
Despite these differences, due to a shared educational structure and academic culture, no fundamental distinction exists between the public and private university experience in Kurdistan. Both institutional types foster broadly similar student identities.
The Political Framework
“Political” here refers to both policy (the guiding philosophy and regulations) and politics (the strategic pursuit of power and interests).
Universities in the KRI are involved in both senses of the “political,” as both senses intersect and often operate in parallel or even as a cohesive process. While the intersection of education and politics has deep historical roots, the modern political system—as a distinct historical project—has intensified this connection. The educational system is not an autonomous sphere but a tool of state-building, deeply aligned with governmental agendas.
Public and private universities in Kurdistan operate within the same political system. They are governed by the same legal and administrative structures, operate under the same ministry, and utilize the same policy tools. Consequently, they are the same type of institution as both share the political framework of the state. Yet this topic has received limited critical attention, likely because it is not perceived as sensitive enough by the academic community or broader society.
What tends to provoke sensitivity is the position of universities within partisan political processes, particularly the interference of powerful individuals and interest groups in educational management for advancing political agendas.
Governmental vs. public
The concepts of “public university,” “public education,” and “public sector” are rooted in modern political and economic traditions, where public will is interpreted and implemented through democratic representation. Ideally, the government should represent the people, not merely the interests of decision-makers or bureaucrats. Hence, in theory, “public universities”should represent the collective will of the people. They should be governed by participatory, transparent processes that reflect public interests, not just those of state institutions.
When we critically examine public universities in Kurdistan, we must assess whether the government that oversees them genuinely reflects the public will. If we see the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) as democratic and representative, it would be reasonable to consider its universities “public.” But if we doubt the legitimacy or responsiveness of the KRG, then we should likewise question the legitimacy of the universities it controls.
In practice, public universities in Kurdistan have consistently served the interests of the government and ruling parties. Ignoring this political dimension in discussions of higher education risks superficiality. Public universities in the KRI are government institutions, reflecting the policies and goals of the ruling authorities. Hence, the term “public university,” as commonly used, may not accurately describe the nature of these institutions. “Government university” is, for now, a more precise and realistic term.
Lack of participation and accountability
Government universities do not reflect the will of the people of the KRI, but rather the political will of the government. There is no mechanism of public participation in key academic or administrative appointments. No member of any university council is elected—directly or indirectly—by society. Presidents, deans, and department chairs are appointed without public input. Professors do not select students, and students cannot choose their instructors.
No major academic process in public universities is accountable to the public in any meaningful sense. At best, the will of the people in higher education mirrors their limited role in the broader governance process of the KRG. Since governance is centralized, bureaucratic, and politically motivated, universities have become tools for partisan interests. Instead of serving as intellectual and ethical guides for society, they serve the short-term political objectives of governance. What is often described as “partisan meddling” is, in fact, embedded in the system’s design.
This is not a symptom of dysfunction but a logical outcome of the governmental nature of the higher educational system. Hence, criticizing public universities does not mean rejecting their “publicness,” but rather calling attention to the lack of democratic governance and institutional autonomy.
Private Universities: A Missed Opportunity
Private universities deserve criticism not because they have diverged from public universities, or become tools for personal or partisan gain, but because—at least in theory—they had the potential to be true alternatives. They could have become spaces that reflected public aspirations and operated with greater autonomy.
Instead, they remain under the same political and epistemological constraints as government universities. They have not developed distinctive institutional identities or critical pedagogies that challenge the status quo. This failure to diverge stems from the legal and policy frameworks imposed at their founding, the absence of epistemological and social activism in academia, and a lack of commitment to autonomy, innovation, or public representation. Their conformity reveals not just political pressure but also a deeper intellectual inertia across the higher educational landscape in Kurdistan.
Conclusion
This article has argued that both public and private universities in the KRI operate within the same restrictive epistemological, social, and political frameworks. What passes as “public” is in fact governmental, and what is private is merely privatized—not autonomous.
Critiquing these institutions is not an act of defamation but a call to reimagine universities as democratic, participatory, and intellectually vibrant spaces that serve the true public interest. The real challenge is not choosing between public and private but questioning the entire structure that limits the emancipatory potential of higher education in Kurdistan.
* This article represents the author’s own views.
