(This article was prepared within the framework of the Khar Center's research on Azerbaijani authoritarianism)
Introduction
For a long time, "grassroots" initiatives within Azerbaijan's civil society that intentionally steered clear of political commentary believed they were aware that organizations such as Abzas Media, Majlis.info, Toplum TV, and the Institute for Democratic Initiatives were targeted by the government because they "clearly expressed a political position" and "engaged in political activity." In contrast, smaller groups believed that by avoiding political stances, they could keep their activities relatively safe (KHAR Center 2025).
Since 2023, a wave of political arrests in Azerbaijan has gradually spread to journalists, members of civil society, researchers, activists, and independent media representatives. This wave remains a serious threat to free media, researchers, public activists, and civil society today. Put simply, journalists have been targeted for shedding light on corruption, official property, and abuses of power; pacifists for overshadowing the "victory" narrative; and environmental and labor rights activists for voicing criticisms against the government. Within this general picture, we see that the government's policy of repression has not bypassed the field of social work. This issue becomes particularly relevant in light of the 7-year and 6-month prison sentence handed down on March 11, 2026, to Zamin Zakiyev—the only social worker arrested within the framework of the "NGO case." This verdict, occurring on the eve of World Social Work Day, brings back to the agenda the question of why and how the profession of social work is being criminalized in Azerbaijan.
The core argument of this KHAR Center analysis is that the criminalization of social work in Azerbaijan does not stem from the profession of social work being formally considered a crime, but from the socio-political potential it carries. Authoritarian regimes view not only overt political opponents but also non-political actors who create trust, networks, information, and opportunities for collective action in society as potential threats. In this regard, even if a social worker is considered a "non-political" person, they are not a safe actor in the eyes of the regime.
Existing approaches mainly explain repressions in Azerbaijan through the political opposition and independent media. However, by directing attention toward a formally non-political field like social work, this article shows that repression is of a broader and more structural nature. In this sense, the topic was chosen because of the lack of explanation regarding why "non-political" professions are also being targeted under the conditions of increasing repression in Azerbaijan.
The Question of the Analysis: In the example of the ongoing recent attacks on civil society in Azerbaijan, what motivates authoritarian regimes to persecute non-political actors?
Why do authoritarian regimes apply repression to non-political actors as well?
This analysis utilizes both theoretical literature and empirical sources. The theoretical section is based on academic works concerning authoritarian repression and the instrumentalization of law. The empirical section is built upon media materials, legal charges, and human rights-oriented reports related to the Zamin Zakiyev case. While these sources are essential for understanding the event, they must be read critically, as media and human rights sources each speak from specific institutional positions.
Taking the Azerbaijani case as a starting point, several theoretical approaches can be used to conceptualize the question: "Why do regimes apply repression against non-political actors?" In particular, Christian Davenport’s State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace and Tom Ginsburg and Tamir Moustafa’s Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes provide a productive framework for answering this question. The main point highlighted by this literature is that non-democratic regimes use repression not only as a reactive tool but also as a preventive management mechanism. That is, the regime moves not after a threat has clearly formed, but as soon as the possibility of its formation arises. According to this logic, although NGOs, social workers, academics, researchers, and civil society members are not direct representatives of political parties, they can be seen as the organizational infrastructure of the opposition.
The key issue here is the logic of "potential threat." Social workers and other civil society actors can bring people together, work with vulnerable groups, establish relationships of trust, collect alternative information, and make public problems visible. For the regime, a threat does not consist only of a person participating in an election or shouting an overt political slogan; a threat also consists of actors who create opportunities for organization, networking, and information exchange in society. From this perspective, "being non-political" does not mean "not being a threat." Because politics does not consist only of elections, parties, and parliament. Politics is simultaneously a matter of organization, networks, public trust, and control over information. Authoritarian regimes, in turn, fear these uncontrolled flows of information.
Regarding the concepts of repression, legitimacy, and criminalization
It is not enough to understand repression only as violence. According to Davenport’s approach, repression is a coercive mechanism used by the state to restrict the freedoms of citizens and to affect their bodies and psychology. This includes imprisonment, physical restrictions, surveillance, interrogation, pressure, and other means. Repression is not just about punishment; it is also about shaping behavior, defining boundaries, and providing the answer to the question "who can do what" to society through force. Within this framework, for authoritarian regimes, the law and the judicial system also become an important part of repression. Zaman keçdikcə uzun ömürlü rejimlər legitimlik ritorikasını yalnız sabitlik, inkişaf və təhlükəsizlik üzərindən deyil, getdikcə daha çox "qanunun aliliyi", "hüquqi dövlət" və "məhkəmə proseduru" üzərindən qurmağa çalışırlar. Bunun səbəbi onların keçmişin açıq və nümayişkaranə zorakılıq üsullarından uzaq görünmək, özlərini daha rasional və institusional hakimiyyət kimi təqdim etmək istəmələridir (Davenport 2007). At this point, the difference between "rule of law" and "rule by law" is vital. "Rule of law" implies the supremacy of law over power. "Rule by law" however, turns the law into a tool of power. Authoritarian regimes often use the second model: the law is used not as an independent mechanism of justice, but to neutralize the regime’s rivals, critics, and potential threats. This is precisely why courts are not completely abolished in authoritarian systems. On the contrary, they continue their activities, but they demonstrate compliance in matters that touch upon the "core interests" of the regime. Judges understand very well that their position within the system is weak and that opposing the core interests of the executive power is dangerous both personally and institutionally. As a result, while courts sometimes demonstrate a degree of autonomy in peripheral or secondary areas, they show compliance regarding "core legal mechanisms" that ensure the regime’s political control. Paradoxically, the more loyally the court behaves toward the executive power, the more "institutional autonomy" the regime is prepared to grant it (Ginsburg and Moustafa 2008).
In this sense, clarifying the concept of criminalization is important for this analysis. International law allows states to define certain acts as criminal offenses in their national legislation. For example, acts such as corruption, human trafficking, and causing injury are considered crimes. This authority belongs to the state and is implemented within the framework of the Constitution and the Criminal Code in the Republic of Azerbaijan. Although there is no separate normative definition of "criminalization" in the Azerbaijani legal system, from the perspective of criminal law theory, it can be described as follows: criminalization is the state designating a certain behavior as a socially dangerous act and establishing criminal liability for it. This concept can be distinguished in two forms:
- Formal criminalization occurs when a certain act is considered dangerous for society, is defined as a criminal composition, and is considered a crime by a specific article in the legislation (Rios, Victor M. 2011). In this sense, social work activity is not envisioned as a separate criminal act in Azerbaijani legislation. A social worker’s professional activity is not formally prohibited or defined as a criminal composition (information on what a social worker’s professional activity entails will be provided in the next section).
- De-facto criminalization, however, creates a different picture. Here, although the activity is not prohibited by law, in practice it becomes an activity that is effectively punished through the harsh application of law enforcement agencies, institutional pressure, judicial prosecution, public stigmatization, and other means (Demetriou 2022). That is, the activity may remain legal from a legal standpoint, but it turns into an environment of real risk, persecution, and punishment for those who perform it. This is precisely the problem social work faces in Azerbaijan: while this activity is not formally a crime, in certain cases, the persons carrying it out can effectively be presented and punished as criminals.
Now, let us look at the charges brought against the persons arrested within the framework of the "NGO case" in Azerbaijan. They have a common pattern: fraud, smuggling, abuse of official powers, official forgery, money laundering, etc. None of these charges are formally "political crimes." The concept of a political crime in international law usually refers to acts directed against the state itself or its political structure, or acts committed with political motives (Watson n.d.). Nevertheless, according to the approach of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, even if a person is charged with ordinary criminal articles, if the prosecution is conducted with political motives, this situation can carry a political character (PACE Resolution 1900, 2012). It is here that the classic pattern of authoritarian legal management emerges: the regime uses ordinary criminal law to punish persons it considers political and social threats. Thus, the arrested person is portrayed as having been brought to justice not for their political activity, but supposedly for their criminal actions.
The main argument that could be put forward against this analysis is that social workers and NGO representatives are held accountable not for their political positions, but for specific legal and financial violations. According to this view, the state’s control over matters of foreign funding, use of official powers, and documentation can be presented as an ordinary practice of legal management. However, the issue is not resolved simply by looking at the formal legal names of the charges. The main question is to whom these charges are applied, with what selectivity, and in what socio-political context. The fact that the same type of charges is directed specifically at the independent media, civil society, and actors who create public trust shows that what is at stake here is the placing of actors with potential socio-political influence under control. This method gives the government two advantages:
- First, it depoliticizes the repression and creates the opportunity to say, "we are not arresting based on political position, but for violations of the law."
- Second, it creates a legal appearance to weaken international and domestic criticism.
In this sense, it is no coincidence that the case in which Zamin Zakiyev was included is called the "NGO case." This appears to be part of a strategy to bring an entire field of civil society under criminal suspicion and thereby undermine public trust.
What is social work, what is the Ubuntu philosophy based on, and who is social worker Zamin Zakiyev?
What is social work?
Social work is a professional activity aimed at providing support to vulnerable groups of society, helping to solve social problems, and contributing to the provision of social justice. According to the definition adopted by the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) in 2014, social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline; its goal is to promote social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people to enhance wellbeing. The core principles of this profession are social justice, human rights, collective responsibility, and respect for diversities (IFSW 2014). This definition shows that social work does not consist only of providing services. It also entails understanding the structural causes of social problems, building forms of social intervention that respond to those problems, and participating in social change initiatives. The same approach is also accepted by the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW 2004). According to this approach, a social worker is a specialist who defends social justice and human rights, strives to increase the opportunities of individuals and communities, and plays a mediator role between people and social institutions and structures.
These characteristics show that a social worker's activity does not consist only of distributing aid and directing toward social services. It also requires understanding how social systems work, working with the inequalities and deprivations generated by these systems, and assuming the role of a public advocate when necessary. In this sense, in international practice, social work is mainly built upon two models:
- Service-oriented model - According to this model, the social worker acts more in the role of an executor carrying out existing services provided by the state or social service institutions. Such activities include the execution of social assistance programs, the organization of social services, and social support work with vulnerable groups. In this model, the social worker operates mostly within the administrative and social service system, and their activity is closely linked to the execution of the social protection system, which is the model that shows itself most in Azerbaijani practice.
- Advocacy model - This model sees the social worker not only as a service executor but also as an actor of social change. In this approach, the social worker draws attention to social problems, defends the rights of vulnerable groups, and participates in public debates (Bliss 2014). In international social work theory, this model is considered legitimate and an integral part of the profession. This is precisely where the problem arises: for an authoritarian regime, this second function of the social worker can turn into a political risk. This is because rights advocacy, delivering the voice of vulnerable groups, making structural problems visible, and public intervention initiatives enter into the public sphere that the government tries to control.
The main difference between these approaches is that narrow approaches see the social worker only as a technical specialist providing services, while broad approaches evaluate them as an actor who produces social relations, rights advocacy, and public trust. The analysis of the article is closer to the second approach, because the Azerbaijani example shows that understanding social work purely as a technical activity is insufficient.
What is the Ubuntu philosophy based on and who is social worker Zamin Zakiyev?
René Descartes is accepted by many as the first modern philosopher, and his famous saying "I think, therefore I am" is explained by how we imagine ourselves. A non-Western philosophy that rejects this emphasis on individualism is a completely different way of thinking about personal identity—Ubuntu—an African philosophy that explains the "sense of self" as being formed by our relationships with other people—"I am because we are." The core values of Ubuntu—relationships, collective responsibility, community accountability, social justice, recognition, and reciprocity—offer a unique framework that distinguishes it from other philosophies (Udah et al. 2025). In this paragraph, by integrating the core values of the Ubuntu philosophy, we will get acquainted with Zamin Zakiyev and his activities, who was aware that social work practices could be significantly developed. This is important so that we understand why the government saw him and his ideas as a "threat."
The feature that distinguishes Zamin's arrest from the journalists and other activists arrested in the same case is that he was not known as a government critic in the classic sense. His activity was not related to opposition political parties, election observation initiatives, or the promotion of political participation. This point is particularly important because a portion of the persons persecuted under the same or similar articles were individuals known as government critics in the Azerbaijani political and public sphere for many years. To understand Zamin's activity, it is necessary to look not only at his individual professional identity but simultaneously at the institutional environment he belonged to and formed, namely the activities of the Ubuntu Social Work Association founded by Zamin.
Ubuntu presents itself as a youth initiative group aimed at increasing the knowledge and skills of social workers. The activities carried out under its auspices: book discussions, the preparation of reading materials and guidebooks for social workers in the Azerbaijani language, seminars, professional meetings, trainings, and initiatives aimed at knowledge production in the field of social work—are actually valuable educational initiatives serving the cultivation of new social workers and their professional and ethical formation. In other words, Ubuntu did not just bring existing social workers together; it was turning into a platform trying to build the future of this field. It is precisely at this point that it is possible to establish a connection between Ubuntu's activity and the regime's perception of threat. Authoritarian systems often do not look for a threat only in overt political opposition. They simultaneously are wary of spaces that create a ground for collective action, public intervention, and critical thinking in the future. As a platform like Ubuntu becomes a place where social workers communalize, form professionally and ethically, and build opportunities for thought and action around human rights values, its role in the eyes of the regime begins to exceed the framework of a simple professional initiative. In this sense, the opportunities created by Ubuntu—training social workers, establishing professional connections, forming a culture of discussion, and creating enthusiasm for human rights-oriented activity—can be read as a "potential threat" within authoritarian logic. Because here, it is not just about the activity of one individual, but about the formation of a network, a space of values, and a social infrastructure that could create a broader public impact in the future. For the regime, the threat is sometimes not the existing opposition, but the social fabric itself that makes opposition or public resistance possible.
Zamin's case shows that one does not necessarily have to be an overt political actor to become a target of repression. Another noteworthy point in this regard was that Zamin's arrest occurred immediately after the USAID - German Marshall Fund announced it was closing in Azerbaijan (ToplumTV 2025). This point is remarkable because the social project implemented by Zamin was funded precisely by this fund. He was charged under Article 313 (official forgery), Article 193-1.3.2 (legalization of money or other property obtained by crime, committed in large amounts), and Article 308.1 (abuse of official powers) of the Criminal Code (MeydanTV 2025). On March 11, 2026, the trial for this case concluded, and Zamin Zakiyev was sentenced to 7 years and 6 months of imprisonment (Human Rights Azerbaijan 2026).
The main question here is: if a social worker is neither a political party member, nor an electoral actor, nor a political oppositionist in the classic sense, why do they become a target?
- The first reason is the social worker's work with vulnerable groups. A social worker comes into direct contact with problems such as poverty, social inequality, violence, institutional indifference, and lack of social protection. While these problems are individual difficulties, they are also often political and structural in nature. As the social worker makes these problems visible, the management failures behind them also become visible.
- The second reason is the social worker's creation of trust and networks. The profession of social work builds lasting relationships with individuals and communities. These relationships are not only service-oriented; they also create social trust, communication, and collectivity. For an authoritarian regime, trust networks outside of state control always carry a potential risk.
- The third reason is the advocacy nature of social work. According to the international understanding, a social worker is not just someone who executes existing services, but a professional subject who defends the rights of vulnerable groups. This takes them out of being purely a "social service worker" and turns them into an actor of public intervention. The regime is precisely worried about this transition point.
- Finally, it is the issue of control over information. Social workers collect information about sensitive areas of society, can demand accountability, document deficiencies, and make invisible problems visible. Considering that Ubuntu has turned into an institution that teaches and promotes these skills, we can see that the regime is wary not only of independent media but of uncontrolled information flows in general.
Furthermore, Zamin Zakiyev's arrest became the start of a broader process that had direct and indirect effects on the social work community. This event did not just act as an individual punitive measure; it carried the character of a signal aimed at an entire professional environment. In this regard, the issue is not limited to the imprisonment of one social worker; it can also be evaluated as a structural event affecting the behaviors, expectations, and opportunities for action of an entire professional environment. After the arrest, other social workers and social work students who had participated in the Ubuntu environment were summoned to the prosecutor's office by law enforcement agencies, questioned, and in some cases, made to wait during court proceedings. Although such experiences are not direct punitive measures, they act as signals creating a serious psychological and professional impact. Consequently, the social work community received the message "activity in this field is risky," not only at a legal but also at a symbolic level.
One of the most important results of this process was the reversal of the "role model effect." Zamin Zakiyev was accepted as an example within the social work community in terms of professional activity, initiative, and ethical values. His arrest turned into a symbol of risk indicators for social workers and students. This, in turn, could lead to the formation of an environment of "self-censorship" that limits opportunities for self-expression, initiative, and public intervention within the profession. At the same time, the cessation of Ubuntu's activities directly affected the opportunities for collective action in the field of social work. The weakening of the environment where social workers gathered to discuss, think about professional perspectives, and exchange knowledge and experience slows down not only individual development but also the institutional development of the field as a whole. Because such platforms are essential spaces for professional socialization, solidarity, and collective learning, their elimination weakens the long-term development potential of social work. In this case, repression does not only neutralize the target but also weakens the network formed around it and prevents future initiatives.
Thus, when the separate parts of this analysis are taken together, they lead to the same conclusion: the reason social work becomes a problem in Azerbaijan is not because it is formally an illegal activity, but because of the socio-public potential it carries. Because the social worker works with vulnerable groups, creates trust and networks, documents social problems, and in some cases carries an advocacy function, they clash with the control logic of the authoritarian regime. For this reason, the criminalization of social work should be understood not as a separate legal category, but as the de-facto repression of actors who appear non-political but create opportunities for collective action and alternative information. In this respect, Ubuntu's activity may have been perceived by the regime not just as a professional initiative, but as a platform that could give rise to broader public mobilization opportunities in the future.
Conclusion
This conclusion is supported by theoretical approaches to the preventive nature of repression, the use of law within the framework of "rule by law," and the patterns of accusations observed in the case of Zamin Zakiyev. Consequently, the criminalization of social work in Azerbaijan does not mean that the profession of social work is formally considered a crime in the law. The issue is more about the de-facto criminalization of social work activity, i.e., the fact that this activity has turned into an effectively risky area through legal, institutional, and political pressure. Zamin Zakiyev's arrest is not an exception in this regard. It is part of the broader logic of authoritarian management. According to this logic, the regime targets not only overt political rivals but also actors who could become carriers of public protest, criticism, or alternative influence in the future. In this sense, a social worker may appear dangerous not because they are "non-political," but precisely because they possess the capabilities for social connection, trust, advocacy, and information production. The topic maintains high relevance today as it sheds light not just on a specific event, but on the ongoing and expanding environment of repression in Azerbaijan.
Therefore, the criminalization of being a social worker in Azerbaijan is related less to social work itself than to the relationships and opportunities it creates within society. For an authoritarian regime, the threat is not just a political party or a journalist; the threat is also every actor that creates alternative trust, organization, and visibility in society. In this sense, the social worker becoming a target is not an anomaly but a continuation of the logic of authoritarian control.
The main limitation of this writing is that it is built mainly on one specific example—the case of Zamin Zakiyev—and the existing information is largely based on open sources. This, in turn, limits the opportunities to conduct a broader empirical comparison.
References:
Bliss, Donna Leigh. 2014. “Using the Social Work Advocacy Practice Model to Find Our Voices in Service of Advocacy.” Journal of Policy Practice 13 (6). https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2014.978060.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. (2012). Resolution 1900 (2012): The definition of political prisoner.
https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=19150.
Davenport, Christian. 2007. State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2131924316.
Demetriou, Stavros. 2022. Indirect Criminalisation: The True Limits of Criminal Punishment. Oxford: Hart Publishing. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2783094382.
Ginsburg, Tom, and Tamir Moustafa. 2008. Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2130888798.
Human Rights Azerbaijan. 2026. “Social Worker Zamin Zaki Sentenced to 7.5 Years in Prison in Azerbaijan’s NGO Case.” Accessed March 24, 2026. https://humanrightsaz.com/en/social-worker-zamin-zaki-sentenced-to-7-5-years-in-prison-in-azerbaijans-ngo-case/.
International Federation of Social Workers. n.d. “Global Definition of Social Work.” Accessed March 24, 2026. https://www.ifsw.org/what-is-social-work/global-definition-of-social-work/.
International Federation of Social Workers and International Association of Schools of Social Work. 2004. Ethics in Social Work: Statement of Principles. https://www.iassw-aiets.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Ethics-in-Social-Work-Statement-IFSW-IASSW-2004.pdf.
KHAR Center. 2025. “Azərbaycanın Vətəndaş Cəmiyyəti: 2023-cü ildən bəri Davam Edən Böhran.” Accessed March 24, 2026. https://kharcenter.com/nesrler/azerbaycanin-vetendas-cemiyyeti-2023-cu-ilden-beri-davam-eden-bohran.
Meydan TV. 2025. “Daha bir QHT sədri barəsində cinayət işi açıldığı, axtarış elan olunduğu bildirilir.” Accessed March 24, 2026. https://www.meydan.tv/az/article/daha-bir-qht-s%C9%99dri-bar%C9%99sind%C9%99-cinay%C9%99t-ici-acildigi-axtaris-elan-olundugu-bildirilir/.
Rios, Victor M. 2011. Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys. New York: New York University Press. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2131077578.
Toplum TV. 2025. “Azərbaycan hakimiyyəti USAID-in fəaliyyətinin dayandırılması ilə bağlı ABŞ-a bildiriş göndərib.” Accessed March 24, 2026. https://toplummedia.tv/olke/pazerbaycan-hakimiyyeti-usaid-in-fealiyyetinin-dayandirilmasi-ile-bagli-abs-a-bildiris-goumlnderibp.
Udah, Hyacinth, Sharlotte Tusasiirwe, Rugare Mugumbate, and Kathomi Gatwiri. 2025. “Ubuntu Philosophy, Values, and Principles: An Opportunity to Do Social Work Differently.” Journal of Social Work 25 (4): 433–451. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14680173241312749.
Watson, Geoffrey R. n.d. “Political Offences and Extradition.” International Law Frameworks / Public International Law in a Nutshell / An Introduction to International Law / Principles of Public International Law / International Law. https://www.proquest.com/docview/201113994.
