MEDIAFORUM.AZ
23.11.2010
"IT IS EASY TO BLAME THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE FOR THE PRESENT SITUATION. BUT ONE HAS TO LOOK UPON ONESELF AS WELL"
Leader of Azerbaijan Liberal Party, Prof. Dr. Lala Shevket answers the questions of the "Mediaforum" site
- The Central election Commission (CEC) has confirmed the results of the 7 November Parliamentary Election and sent the final protocols to the Constitutional Court. There were speculations that results in some constituencies would be annulled. This, however, did not happen. How do you assess this and the election results in general?

- In general, there has been nothing unforeseen for me. The electoral process and the results were as expected. In January 2010 I have made a prognosis about all these and acknowledged that in 2009 the government had held a dress rehearsal at the municipal election. By the municipal elections the government has shown the public that it can carry out the election process by itself, elect its own candidates and eventually establish a one-party system. It was very important. For the first time in the history of independent Azerbaijan only one party has participated in an election without any alternative. The ruling Yeni Azerbaijan Party campaigned by itself, listened to itself and elected itself. At the time I have warned that the government was planning to carry out the parliamentary election in just the same manner as the municipal. The dress rehearsal before the premiere went smoothly. I have called upon everyone to understand that the forthcoming parliamentary election was to be held in the same way by the authorities. That is why in January through the media I have proposed for the whole opposition to forget all the differences and unite in a single democratic front to be an alternative to the regime. I have told that without such an alliance nothing would happen and the parliamentary election would be held under government's monopoly, just like the municipal elections. This was in January! Since I have made such a prognosis then, it means there has been nothing unexpected. I knew the election would be held that way, that how it was bound to be, and that was precisely how it happened. Nevertheless, the responsibility here is not government's alone, after all their style is well-known and remains the same. We must admit that responsibility here rests also with the opposition. If the majority of the democratic forces cannot work as a team and instead occupies itself with attacking and slandering each other, groundless claims, disorder and fighting for leadership, then nothing can be achieved. I am saying this unequivocally: democracy is first of all culture of mutual relations. Without culture there can be no democracy - this is an axiom. Specifically, if a system of human relations between political leaders is not up to standard nor civil, it is useless to talk about democracy.

It is easy to evaluate an election after it is held. An obligation of a politician, however, is to see and evaluate it before it happens. An election consists of three stages: legislative basis, pre-election atmosphere and the voting itself. The first and second stages play a key role here, voting day being just a technical matter. If we, the opposition, taking a grip of ourselves fought for the change in the legislative basis and the pre-election situation, that is if we could take the election process at least partially from under a total monopoly of the government, then we could have achieved something. Without all these the results of the election should have been like that.

At the same time I would like to clear my position on several matters. Course of the election has shown that the government is in a very weak state. It has reduced the television campaigning of the opposition to just 4 minutes per candidate. These 4 minutes cannot be even considered campaigning, for it is impossible to explain something sufficiently to the electorate in such a short period. At the same time a greater part of oppositional candidates were not registered as official candidates due to different fabricated pretexts. All these facts prove that the government is not confident. That is, the government fears each additional minute on television for the opposition. It cannot even coherently answer to what the opposition says in those meagre 4 minutes, and not just what the opposition says, but also to what the independent candidates say. A confident government, which can answer for its deeds with actual arguments, would never have appeared so weak. The regime's behaviour everywhere and at all times has shown its weakness. The opposition, however, participated in this election in a weakened state as well. Breaking into different blocs, failing to secure normal pre-election situation, failing to organise into a single front has brought about the results, which we have.

There are serious lessons to be learned from this election for both the government and the opposition. First, the Central election Commission claims turnout of more than 50 percent. However, in a politically more active Baku the turnout in reality was no more than 10-15 percent, with the exception of the so-called "carrousels". These figures are a tragedy for both the government and the opposition. The nation has shown it believes neither the government, nor the opposition. The nation has shown it simply does not trust elections anymore. It was a passive protest. The nation boycotted the election. This is very important, because first of all the very institution of election in Azerbaijan has been de-facto abolished; the word election lost all its meaning. Second, as a consequence the Parliament has totally lost its significance. Traditionally opposing forces in parliament come to a compromise by a way of discussion, debates and dialogue. In the Azerbaijani Parliament these are no longer possible. Third, a precipice between the government and the opposition has deepened. Finally, the most dangerous is that not allowing opposition to be in parliament will bring to its weakening, which in its turn will open way for the extremist, anti-democratic and uncivil radical forces in an atmosphere of total discontent. This is a law of history and very dangerous for Azerbaijan.

- You have pointed out that there are no opposition representatives in the Parliament. Some connect that with the possible unfavourable solution of the Qarabagh problem, which would have to go through the Parliament, others consider it a mean to disable the opposition altogether. What was in your opinion a reason for forming the Parliament in such a way?

- The reason for that is quite clear. Azerbaijan has been turned back towards a Soviet communist system and a single-party system has been created. A single-party system is more comfortable for an authoritarian regime allowing it to pass any legislation without difficulties. This in turn means that the Parliament lost all its significance. As for a possible peace treaty over Qarabagh problem being signed and passed through the Parliament, I do not believe that any such treaty is possible in the next 5 years at least. There are conflicting geopolitical factors at play here, and in my opinion the conflict will remain frozen. Therefore, I consider connecting the results of the Parliamentary election to the Qarabagh problem groundless.

- How do you evaluate the opinion of the international observers? Is there any difference to the previous election? How will this election impact of the international image of Azerbaijan?

- The main evaluation to the election has been given by the OSCE. Indeed, OSCE's evaluation has been more or less objective. After that the US Department of State has published its opinion based on the OSCE report. I think that the opinion of the OSCE and the US Department of State has been generally objective. But today I do not think that statements of the international organisations can have any impact. We have heard many such statements and opinions in the past years, but seen no impact on the government, because Western states' pragmatic interests prevail in Azerbaijan. These are connected to security, energy and economy. The West is not ready to put aside these matters and make democracy and human rights its priority. So, neither Europe nor the United States are able to build democracy here. It is our own duty and responsibility as a nation.

As for Azerbaijan's international image, in the last 5 years this image has greatly deteriorated. Authoritative international organisations consider Azerbaijan an authoritarian state from the democracy and human rights point of view. Some see Azerbaijan as a dictatorship. So, Azerbaijan is known in the world as a non-democratic country. So, how can the image be worse than that? It will remain that way. In any case the government must think about it, for such a situation cannot go on. They cannot go far in this manner. They must reconsider where they are leading Azerbaijan. In my opinion everything is in a dead-end. Today, both the government and the opposition must think about where we are going.

- In your opinion, did the government in its actions during the election rely on Russia or the West?

- I can say unequivocally that the West had no impact on this election. During the last several years Azerbaijan has, undoubtedly, started to repeat the policies of Russia. The government has chosen that way. I have said that many times.

- Was there any impact on the election results from the different opposing factions within the government?

- The information in some newspapers about quarrels between the opposing groups within the government over the parliamentary election is not quite true. Undoubtedly, like in all the authoritarian regimes, the power holders have considered and confirmed from the beginning the scenario, genre and casting of this election. I do not believe that the existence of any such groups within the government could have had any impact on this. On the other hand, the Parliament's powers are very limited and therefore there are no means of influencing the big politics there.

- Are any personnel reforms possible in the government after this election?

- This matter depends on the intellectual level, mentality, world-outlook, perception of the world and resolve of the government. They have to answer first of all to themselves about where and how they have lead Azerbaijan. If after answering that question they begin the reforms with logic and correct perception of the modern world that can be very positive. I do not, however, consider this likely to happen.

- Are you expecting the Constitutional Court to annul the results in some constituencies?

- I would not say so. I think, the Constitutional Court will confirm the results of the Central Election Commission as they are. It might annul results in a few polling-stations in addition to the already cancelled by the CEC, but that will not influence the overall results of the election.

- In your opinion, what the opposition should do now?

- Several opposition forces started a big campaign against me after I had revealed in January 2010 my proposals of what the opposition should do. And they have not accepted my proposals, so, now they bear the fruits of their mistakes. It is quite unfortunate that both the government and the opposition cannot leave the vicious circle. They continue using the same tactics over and over again. Today the opposition holds a forum. But after the 2005 Parliamentary election a forum has been held as well, and we have signed a declaration promising to resign our parliamentary seats in protest against the total falsification. Despite signing the document some of them betraying their signatures took their seats in the Parliament and thus legitimised it. Today the same process repeats itself. A forum is being held. I would wish that this time they would be at least more respectful of their own words and signatures. Generally I do not believe that such an undertaking can succeed after all these years of mutual distrust, insincerity and slander. Regretfully not a single oppositional alliance in Azerbaijan out of so many was long-lasting. It is an illness, and although it probably has its medicine, no one is willing to take it.

Our general strategy and tactics should change. The struggle should continue in a framework of civilised relations. It is impossible to achieve anything by slandering each other, calling names and pinning labels. In this election the opposition should have shown its strength as a single team. The opposition itself should not have allowed for the campaign to be carried out in such an uncivilised way. That is a fundamental question. When the nation saw that the opposition cannot arrange a settlement even within itself, it lost it faith in the opposition. The opposition does not understand that all this negative campaigning against each other weakens the opposition as a whole. We cannot name even a single opposition leader, who was not pinned with a dirty label by the opposition itself. The opposition could not come to a compromise. There has been a lot of a talk about it, but no results whatsoever. In order to leave this vicious circle a new system of relations and a new strategy should be created. One must not repeatedly travel a dead-end road. How many times can one get into the same puddle? The opposition should have the courage to admit failure at this stage. It is easy to blame the government and the people for this failure. But one has to look upon oneself as well.

We often declare our adherence to principles and values. But a system of values means that the people should either be sincere with each other or refrain from forming an alliance altogether. It is true that from a pragmatic point of view my position cannot be understood. But I am not a pragmatic person. I consider pragmatism to be useful only in foreign politics, never with one's colleagues and people.

- You are an opposition leader too. Do you have any plans to implement the things you said?

- For the last 17 years I have been calling upon the opposition to unite. Now I am tired of it. For 17 years opposition alliances emerge and break up, whereas I am the first to be attacked. Finally, I am fed up with it. I say that openly. From now on I will go my own way as a party leader and I have no intention of joining any alliances in the near future.

- There are calls for creation of an alliance like the Popular movement. Do you think it is possible?

- I repeat once again. I said in January that the movement was necessary, the front was necessary. Today, however, I do not believe that such a movement can be created. Even if created, it will be short-lived. I believe no more in a possibility of creating a strong and earnest movement. I am an independent person and always have expressed my independent position. So, today I say that I believe in no alliance and do not see myself a part of any of them. I participated independently in 1995 and 2003 elections. The Liberal Party under my leadership participated independently in 2000 and 2005 parliamentary elections and got quite a big number of votes. So, today as a political party we are capable of going our own way, and as a leader of the party I will travel my own road.

- Is this a step more calculated for the 2013 Presidential election?

- It is too early and unfounded to speak about the presidential election now. Today we must think about different matters. Today we must follow the situation, see where it goes and how it develops, analyse it and act accordingly. We shall speak, God willing, about the Presidential election in January of 2013.

corr. Imdad ALIZADE