Some thoughts about Azerbaijan...

July 25, 2008. My plane has recently landed in Riga airport from Baku. Two weeks long journey is over and I am trying to collect my written notes and organize my impressions, thoughts about the time I spent in Azerbaijan, people I met, stories I heard. I beg your pardon in advance if you find some of my notes critical or not objective as you understand them. But these are the notes of one Latvian idealist.

The first thing which flashed into my mind when I got off the plane in Riga airport was about fresh air. “Wow, amazingly fresh air! I can breath!” – I told myself that time, thinking later that the air in the airport might be one of the most polluted in Riga, but it is even more polluted in Baku and Apsheron peninsula at large, where polluted air, dust, car emissions and hot weather during summer days create an environment difficult to endure for a person who did not get used to such conditions. Numerous reports on the world’s dirties cities found on the internet name Sumqayit – city close to Baku – as the one of the most polluted areas on the Earth, but some locals told me that it might happen that soon Baku will replace Sumqayit on the list, as most of the Soviet-era old chemical plants are closed or functioning at low capacity.

Lifting crane has already become a visible symbol of Baku. Construction works are everywhere, which symbolizes the economical boom country experience these days as oil and gas money fills the pockets of the government and better off citizens. Although it seems to me that a proper city development strategy plan has not yet been agreed on and discussed with the public. Usually public is just informed, not consulted. Only few people I met told me that they really like the city where do they live. Maybe this is just a minor fact to mention, but it reveals us a lot about the relations between authorities and society at large, but I will get back to this discussion later.

Let me describe my last day in Baku, when I decided to attend a workshop of my Finnish friend for the IDP children, living in a separate zone in one of the districts of Baku. It was terribly hot that day. The workshop started at 1 pm, but it seemed that children were waiting for it to start long before as the cheerful crowd of children age 7-12 greeted us in front of the building. We got the key and entered a tiny room with a small window, three tables, several chairs and a flipchart. In a few minutes one more volunteer from France and a local girl-interpreter showed up. The theme of the day was volunteerism and volunteer work.

Children were asked to share their views on numerous topics related to volunteerism, also being engaged in some interactive games. And I was really amazed by the patience of children, who had to spend several hours in a tiny stuffy room. They were noisy as usually children are, but some of their thoughts gave me a lot of food for thoughts.

Once they were asked to share their views on what they like and dislike in Azerbaijan. Music, national instruments, food, historical monuments, Baku old town and many other things were mentioned as the things children like most of all. Poor living conditions (housing), littering, pollution were mentioned as the most negative things about Azerbaijan. “How can you solve these problems?” my Finnish friend asked a boy. “We can write a joint appeal to the President, and he will definitely help us,” the boy answered. His view was shared by others. Asking, how can we solve the problem of littering by our means, most of the children replied that their parents litter, throw plastic bottles outside, thus showing an example for them.

We took a small break for cookies and a glass of water. My friend and I went out to breathe some fresh air, discussing what has been said by the children. Somehow I could not understand why people living in such bad conditions all the time complain, hope for the president and do nothing to change their environment, making it even worse. I heard about it from old people, but was amazed to hear the same from children. Why not to take your own initiative, clear the courtyard and paint entrances of the houses with the help of children thus making your own environment more friendly and creative? Is it just because of the mentality to fully rely on the authorities or apathy to do something? One can point that this is the job of the local authorities and people should demand more, especially if you live in oil rich country, but petro dollars or manats do not reach ordinary people. Moreover, most of the people still have this Soviet mentality of the authorities as not just civil servants or politicians who are elected to serve the people and their needs, but powerful people who are empowered to rule over them. But as regards ecological situation in the country, I think ecological problems will pursue Azerbaijan in the future and the situation might get even worse, one argument for that – children are shown an example that littering is not a bad thing and not taught to cherish the nature and environment where do they live.

Azerbaijan can be an example for the region, introducing alternative sources of energy – wind and solar – and not basing their economy only on oil and gas as the basic source of energy. Baku is known as the city of wind, but sun is shining most of the time, especially during spring, summer and fall. But you will never see a windmill or solar batteries on the roof of a house in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan has a huge potential to be a leader in this sphere, producing not only oil and gas vital for the European economy, but also clean energy and equipment to get this energy. Some people with whom I had a chance to talk see the future of Azerbaijan in the development of IT sphere, so the country can produce leading IT specialist and even can compete with India for the outsourcing of the Western business. How long it will take to Azerbaijan to transform and educate its society? I was told that it might be a strategy for 2025, while, for example, rivalry Armenia has already begun to position itself as a land of outsourcing – IT, accounting etc. Some colleagues of mine during our discussion on this topic pointed that the future of Azerbaijan might be the development and focusing more on nanotechnology. It might be so, but this means more investment in education and applied sciences. Investments are vitally needed also into the infrastructure, especially roads. It took us 5,5 hours to drive 160 km from Baku to the city of Quba located in the Northern part of the country. The main road was in a terrible condition.

However, in order to make Azerbaijan a prosperous country reforms are crucially needed – less bureaucracy, one window policy for local business and foreign investors, establishment of the independent anti-corruption bureau etc. But it is impossible to do this without the will of the elite, which is now so enriched and consist only from better off people, who live in a completely different world full of luxury. And it is not surprisingly that children of this elite class of citizens, who gained their fortune, are vivid supporters of the policy of Heydar Aliyev and his son and successor Ilham Aliyev. They might be just 22, having already a cool car, expensive clothes and prestigious job, because they have rich parents with so needed and crucial network of friends and relatives, who hold good positions in the government or state controlled institutions. And these people are diplomats and high-ranking officials in the foreseeable future. I cannot argue that this is a common trend, but this is an impression I got after my two visits to this country.

“We do not need your democracy!”, “Do not teach us how to live!”, “If not Heydar Aliyev, Azerbaijan could not have been an independent country! All what we have achieved is thanks to him!”, “We have already seen your style of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan!” – these are the words taken from my discussion with young fortunate Azerbaijanis working for state institutions and studying in prestigious universities.

Absence of the rule of law, endemic corruption, cronyism, wealth gap, lack of transparency, widespread poverty – these are the things young Azerbaijanis living in the IDP neighbourhood of Baku wrote in their papers, describing what do they dislike in Azerbaijan. The section “what I like” was empty or full of question marks. This is the case I was told by my friend, who conducted several workshops for different age IDPs from Nagrno-Karabakh. These young men have no money and have no hope for the better future, because the style of governance does not benefit them. Some of these young people join various democratic youth movements, but some are searching for the opportunity to go to Europe or the USA with the aim to stay there, citing that they can help their country more while living abroad.

Here I might be accused of having too critical approach, not mentioning positive sides of the work of the government, but I just reflect an impression of a Latvian idealist. I really cannot understand the meaning of the Day of National Salvation (June 15), when Heydar Aliyev came to power once again in 1993, celebrations of the 39th anniversary when Heydar Aliyev came to power in 1969 on July 14, oil rich country with hospitals in Baku and regions resembling mad houses from horror movies. Maybe the answer is that I have been socialized in a completely different way – to think critically, be active and responsible citizen, to have a debate within the society, to ask maximum and strive for it – and I have completely different values in my life.

Jewish and Muslim religious leaders, whom I met during my trip, had started and finished their speeches, praising the current leadership of the country, but why do I see so many negative sides? I do not claim that Latvia is perfect in everything – democratic establishment of the country, governance style, economic situation, but I see this debate, openness of the governance system, check & balances. What I see in Azerbaijan is a cult of personality, where people have no freedom to choose, but just to respect and obey.


PS: On July 11, it took us 4 hours to get from Qobustan to Baki (around 40 km) or maybe even more as were were stuck in the worst traffic jam I have ever experienced. The reason: opening of the mosque down on the route, where president I. Aliyev took part. There were no announcement before that day that the road will be closed for a certain period of time. Moreover, there were just 2-3 cars of the traffic police, trying to manage the flow of cars, but unsuccessfully. As a result we had to get off and continue our roure by foot.

Azerbaijan – swimming in the empty pool

Extract from an published paper on the Democratization trends in the South Caucasus through the prism of the presidential elections in 2008:

Chapter II: Azerbaijan - swimming in the empty pool

On December 16, 2008 the ruling “New Azerbaijan Party” (YAP), whose Chairman is the current president of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, sounded its proposal to scrap the limit on the presidential term, arguing that “the fact is that presidency of one person more than twice is a breach of law. This version cannot give chance to electors to state their position”. According to the Deputy Chairman of YAP, Executive Secretary of the Party Ali Ahmadov if the condition was not established for a person, who people wanted to elect, they would be obliged to vote for unwished person.

Supporters of this move like to make references to the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt who served four consequent presidential terms. However, their opponents, like Ali Kerimli, accuse authorities in attempt to “legalize monarchy” and follow the example of George Washington as ” Presidential term limits were created to prevent politicians from clinging to power and to place system-based procedure above personality-driven politics. But it seems the impulse of many world leaders to view themselves as indispensable remains strong. Azerbaijan is just the latest in a long line of countries”. In a recent article, which sparked controversy in Azerbaijan, Armenian political analyst David Babayan describes the curent trends in Azerbaijan as the “smooth transition into the Azerbaijani khanate”, which used to be a form of rule in Azerbaijan till 19th century, when the region become a part of the Russian empire.

Indeed, former president of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev has been proclaimed as a national leader. The day he returned from Nakhchivan to Baku in 1993 to rule the country (June 15) is an official holiday called National Salvation Day, his birthday on May 10 is celebrated as Flower Festival, July 14 is celebrated as the day when Heydar Aliyev was elected as the First Secretary of the Central Committee of Azerbaijan Communist Party in 1969. Ilham Aliyev “inharited” presidency from his father Heydar Aliyev in elections on October 15 2003, which were marked as rigged both by international observers and opposition, causing massive protest rallies, which were dispersed by police with five protestors being killed. Parliamentarian elections on November 6, 2005 were also marked by fraud and violence.

Since then there has been no dialogue between government and opposition, despite the several attempts and mediation efforts from the side of international community, including OSCE, which has proposed several important amendments to the Election Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan like configuring of the Central Election Commission and lower-level commissions to ensure they enjoy public confidence, in particular the trust of those running for office as previously they were controlled by the ruling New Azerbaijan Party. On June 2, 2008 the Parliament of Azerbaijan has adopted new amendments to the Election Code without addressing this issue, which was “one area of concern” of the OSCE Venice Commission. Another “areas of concern” was reduction of the official election campaign (media and voter agitation period) by 50% from 60 days to 28 and removal of the legal obligation of State-funded AzTV to provide equal campaign conditions and prohibited it from conducting any form of campaign.

Television in Azerbaijan remains the most important news disseminator and that is controlled, either by the owners who have allegiance to the establishment or by local authorities, but state-funded AzTV covering almost the entire country. According to the leader of the opposition Musavat Party Isa Gambar, “restrictions on access to TV mean that authorities, who are conducting their propaganda 24 hours a day during the whole year, are afraid that the opposition would have a few hours for contact with voters.”

All major opposition parties condemned the amendments and decided to boycott the presidential elections to be held on October 15, 2008, citing “continued persecution of the opposition, a lack of normal and free conditions for holding an election and restrictions on campaigning.” As a result of this decision, these elections resembled more like a “referendum” on trust to the incumbent president Ilham Aliyev as he faced no real competitors as some of them (like leader of Muasir Musavat Party Hafiz Hajiyev, who in his campaign criticised more the “entourage” of the president, but not himself) even had portraits of the incumbent president and their competitor Ilham Aliyev.



OSCE International Election Observation Mission in its preliminary statement assesses the elections “with their compliance with OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections”, however pointing in its preliminary conclusions that “elections marked considerable progress toward meeting OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and other international standards but did not meet all commitments.” However, there are several important facts on the election process to be mentioned (according to the IEOM Report, October 16, 2008):

• On October 3, 2008 according to the stipulation of the Law on Freedom of Assembly Azerbaijan’s Cabinet of Ministers approved list of places prohibited for mass actions, which consists only from administrative buildings occupied by the central, regional and city executive powers. Moreover, the Law states that “The number of picketers shall not be more than 50 persons and they shall not be located closer than 10 meters to the entrance of a picketed object, shall not make obstacles for entry and exit into the picketed object and shall not use amplifiers above 10 watt;”
• While the law states that the relevant executive bodies shall provide special venues for conducting rallies and shall issue a list of “proposed places” from which the organizers of such rallies “can choose”. The Baku City authorities interpreted it as an exclusive list and denied requests of the opposition group “Joint Front of Democratic Forces” to hold rallies in the centre of the city in places which were not included in the list drawn up by the authorities;
• The election process was carried out in a peaceful manner, but was characterized by a lack of robust competition and of vibrant political discourse facilitated by media, and thus did not reflect all the principles of a meaningful and pluralistic democratic elections;
• Election commissions were appointed under a politically contentious formula;
• The incumbent president faced a field of candidates who commanded little apparent public support. Most of the public was not aware of any campaigning by other candidates nor seemed aware that any candidate aside from Ilham Aliyev was running;
• Although the incumbent president declared his intention not to campaign personally, he extensively toured the country in his official capacity, inaugurating new factories, roads, schools, sport complexes, museums and an airport, visiting military installations but also awarding flats to veterans. These visits, which received wide media coverage, were associated with campaign activities by the media and the electorate. This blurring of the distinction between the regular activities of the incumbent and his campaign created unequal campaigning opportunities;
• People had been obliged to attend rallies organised by the YAP. In some cases law-enforcement bodies and organizers prevented participants from leaving rallies at their convenience;
• There was limited coverage of the campaign in the news programme and most of the broadcasters (state-funded and private) with national outreach devoted the bulk of their news coverage to the incumbent president;
• As opposition called people to boycott the elections thus trying to achieve low voter turnout, which will mean lack of legitimacy for Ilham Aliyev, authorities organised special schemes of brining people to the polling stations (“pyramidal networks of persons responsible for the group of voters organised by local authorities and/or election commissions, and were in some cases linked to the YAP”).

According to the CEC results, Ilham Aliyev got 87, 34% of votes with 75, 64% voter turnout with all the candidates conceding their defeat. While ruling party (YAP) stated that this election was “a triumph of democracy”, Iranian election monitors did not notice any violations, GUAM Secretary General Valeri Chechelashvili stated that presidential elections were democratic, CIS Observation Mission was of the same opinion (“the elections were legitimate, open and transparent”), but head of the mission Mikhail Krotov stated that Azerbaijan can even teach democracy to other countries and offered to hold an international workshop in Baku for learning Azerbaijani election experience.

Statements of European observers were also mainly positive about the election process:

• “Elections in Azerbaijan are like the elections in all European countries” (Solomon Passy, former OSCE Chairman, former Bulgarian Foreign Minister and candidate for the NATO Secretary general);
• “Elections meeting international norms were held in Azerbaijan and European Parliament observers have not recorded any breach of law” (Kristina Ojuland, Vice Speaker of the Parliament of Estonia)

Only Andres Herkel, the head of the Council of Europe's parliamentary delegation, said openly that the election was "a very good swimming exercise, but unfortunately, it's an empty pool." Indeed, despite the technically smoothly conducted elections, the election process is not only about Election Day, but is the whole process, including election campaign and appropriate legislation to conduct free and fair elections, which was not the case in Azerbaijan.

[...]

P.S.:  The Briefing: Postmortem Of The Azerbaijani Election RFE/RL's Azerbaijani Service Director Kenan Aliyev discusses this week's presidential election in Azerbaijan, which he characterized as rigged and without any meaningful opposition.

PHOTOS: Courtesy of Marcin Lapczyncki

GEORGIA – “TRIUMPH OF DEMOCRACY?”

Extract from an published paper on the Democratization trends in the South Caucasus through the prism of the presidential elections in 2008:

[...]

According to the assessment of Georgian political analyst David Aprasidze, “Georgia is an example of the new wave of transformation in Eurasia. Observers variously depicted it as a country “lurching towards democracy” in 2001, starting to “awaken with the Rose Revolution” in 2003, and ending with “sliding towards Authoritarianism” in 2007. (…) The ruling elite used the modernization slogan as a tool for consolidating its own power.” Indeed, since Rose Revolution which took place in 2003, Georgia has been called as a “new democracy”, “beacon of liberty” or “model new democracy” by many world commentators, politicians and leaders, most notably by the U.S. President George W. Bush on his visit to Tbilisi in May 2005 (“Georgia is today both sovereign and free and a beacon of liberty for this region and the world” ).

However, Freedom House 2005 report “Nations in Transit: democratization to Central Europe and Eurasia” noted that “strengthening the state was accompanied by certain setbacks in democratic freedoms and the balance of political power. The new government, eager to maintain the momentum of revolutionary change and achieve fast results, has not always respected existing laws and procedures in pursuing its policies. Constitutional changes in February 2004 weakened the Parliament and moved Georgia in the direction of superpresidentialism. Independent media became less critical and pluralistic, prosecutors became less likely to follow due process, and the courts rarely dared to disagree with the prosecution.” Although according to the Freedom House “Freedom in the World” reports Georgia has never been a free country, remaining partly free, its rating of political rights and civil liberties decreased from 3 in 2005 to 4 (out of 6) in 2008/2009. Georgia’s “democracy rating” declined due to the restrictions placed on political opposition following the November 2007 emergency declaration and circumscription of media and expression in the aftermath of the November protests.

However, for those analysts closely following the situation in the country, the events which unfolded in Georgia was hardly a surprise. Political opposition cried that „[Georgian] government reversed from the democratic development of the state, and we do not know, where we are going now”, but „Rose Revolution has transformed into Rose Terror with the sole aim – to establish a dictatorship in the country.”

Georgia’s leaders rebuffed every criticism of the government and its policies and depicted such opposition as national betrayals. Meanwhile, as Georgian MP Vladimir Papava writes, “the parliament has become so weakened that it is now called the “government’s notary.” In addition to the weakening of parliament, the judiciary has also lost its strength and independence. Today, it is run by the General Prosecutor’s Office, firmly rooting it within the executive branch.” And while corruption had been rooted out among policemen, university staff and ordinary civil servants, we can speak about neo-corruption or “elite” corruption, the term which was first used and described by Georgian ombudman Sozar Subari – “There is a group of people that enjoy the everything- permissible-status; they are privileged in all aspects. They can exploit the official structures, dismiss, arrest whom they desire, shut down the business, destroy, take away, prohibit, sequestrate, etc. Them and their close people is permitted everything, what is nobody allowed.” This became evident after former Defence Minister and once close presidential ally Irakli Okruashvili was charged with extortion, money laundering and misuse of power only after he accused president Saakashvili of ordering murders and formed an opposition party.

On November 7, 2007 authorities violently dispersed a protest rally, which was held in front of the Parliament located on the main street of Tbilisi. Meanwhile, police said that the demonstration was not broke up. “We have resumed traffic on the Tbilisi's main thoroughfare [Rustaveli Avenue], because we have been receiving numerous requests from citizens to unblock the road,” Giorgi Grigalashvili, chief of the Georgian patrol police, said. However, authorities not only “cleaned the street”, but also broke into the office of the independent TV station IMEDI (the most popular of the three privately-owned TV stations, with two thirds of the national audience and run by opposition figure Badri Patarkatsishvili), seizuring its property without any warrant to prove the legality of their actions. President Saakashvili immediatelly declared a state of emergency, accusing Russia of attempts to overthrow him and shutting down all the news programmes on independent TV stations (Imedi TV and TV Kavkasia went off the air), leaving the state controlled Georgian Public Broadcaster (GPB) as the only station to broadcast the news. The next day president announce the exraordinary elections will take place on January 5, 2008, later resinging from his post accordingly with the constitution.

The International Election Observation Mission in its preliminary conclusions stated that these elections were "in essence consistent with most OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections". However, "significant challenges were revealed which need to be addressed urgently.

Doubtlessly, these elections were the first genuinely competitive presidential elections in Georgia with seven candidates running for the presidential seat. However it is important to mention some "challenges" according to the IEOM report, 6 January 2009 :

1. The campaign was overshadowed by widespread allegations of intimidation and pressure, among others on public-sector employees;
2. The opposition, already dealing with a short and unexpectedly early campaign period, had poor funding and was left without a major nationwide broadcast platform, first because of the state of emergency and then because of TV Imedi’s suspension. The very high cost of paid political advertising on television limited the candidates’ possibilities to campaign in the media. Only Mr. Saakashvili was able to place paid spots on all four nationwide channels;
3. The campaign coverage in news programs lacked balance on most monitored TV stations, with Mr. Saakashvili generally receiving the most coverage;
4. GEL 22,986,081 (about USD 14.4 million) was spent on Mikheil Saakashvili’s re-election campaign;
5. The blurring of the line between state and political party, which is not in compliance with paragraph 5.4 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document, was an issue and created an unequal campaign environment;
6. While the new CEC composition formula resulted in welcome greater political inclusiveness, the commission’s members were often not observing the neutrality required of election administration, and many decisions were voted in a partisan manner. The opposition parties were underrepresented in managerial positions at the PEC level. The ruling United National Movement (UNM) held a de facto majority in PECs;
7. Outside many polling stations (mainly in Tbilisi), buses transporting UNM supporters to vote were noted;
8. The vote count was evaluated less positively, with a significant number of IEOM observers assessing it as bad or very bad.

According to the CEC results, published on January 13, 2008, Mikheil Saakashvili got 53, 41% with the turnout 56, 18%. However, opposition claimed that Saakshvili has received 37% of the votes and 600-700 summary protocols have been falsified, calling for the second round of elections. But despite of the “significant challenges to be addressed urgently”, international election observers in general hailed polls as democratic:

• “After having observed the election in several regions, in polling stations and following the overall path of the election, we consider it to have been carried out in a free and fair manner” (group of Estonian parliamentarians)
• “In general the election was democratic and fair and was held in line with international standards.” (Lithuanian observers)
• “In Georgia yesterday democracy took a triumphant step.” (Alcee L. Hastings, the U.S. Congressman who coordinated the OSCE short-term observation mission)

Meanwhile, European leaders rushed to congratulate Mihkeil Saakashvili even before the official annoncement of the results by CEC on January 13: President of Ukraine Victor Yushchenko, President of France Nicola Sarkozy, President of Estonia Thomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Turkey Abdullah Gul, President of Poland Lech Kaczinsky and others.

These elections disclosed the polarisation of the society in Georgia, which mainly has a geographical character. Mikheil Saakashvili won elections mostly in the regions, but lost in the capital Tbilisi, where more than a half of the population lives. This polarization has undermined confidence in the presidential poll; as a result quite a big number of the population considers acting president as illegitimate. The most vivid example of that was on January 20, the day of the inauguration of the re-elected president Saakashvili. Everyone in the outside world had seen the picture, where a newly elected president goes through the cheerful crowd, a lot of people gathered to greet their re-elected president. But that was a well staged show, because only selected people, who had special invitations issued by the authorities, had a chance to get closer to the place of the inauguration, other people (tens of thousands) gathered in the hippodrome to show their protest.

[...]