“I rule here, and the blind democrats - in Europe”

Ilgar Mammadov,
Co-founder, Republicanist Alternative (REAL) union

When talking local politics, Azerbaijanis often refer to the old saying, in fact political category: ‘I rule here, and the blind Caliph – in Baghdad.’ Throughout our long-time existence at the cross-roads of civilizations we only saw changes in the residence address of that powerful Caliph, whose bigger global or personal agendas precluded him from seeing and reacting to oppression in Azerbaijan.

The most recent one lived in Moscow. The communist format failed to eliminate repressive tradition of governance in Azerbaijan. We barely had even the rule of Soviet law. Moscow was for the most part indifferent to what local rulers did to Azerbaijanis as long as it believed the overall situation was under control, and minorities could consume the ‘comfort’ of living in Russia’s socialist empire.

Independent since 1991, the country is a member of Council of Europe, is an important ally of the United States and EU in the region, and yet, the local dictator with medieval political thinking roots out one after another every sprout of freedom. Democracy became an imitation, just like was socialism recently.

Let us look only at 2009. In earlier years, authorities have already falsified all elections, jailed and beaten up a number of journalists, imposed totalitarian-style control over TV and radio, created an atmosphere of fear among businesses so that they dare not to think about supporting any opposition activity, and monopolized all significant areas of economic life. Western allies instead focused on “achievements.” After each blatant stealing of popular vote, the OSCE observation missions emphasized ‘certain progress in some areas of election administration.’ As a result, OSCE observation has been largely discredited in Azerbaijan.  That happened on the background of Azerbaijan not being able to leave the bottom of the Transparency International's corruption perception rating for more than 10 years.

On 1 January 2009 President Aliyev banned the Radio Liberty, Voice of America, and BBC from broadcasting in FM frequencies, thus depriving them of 90% of the audience. On 19 February he forced the country’s most popular privately-owned news portal – rather pluralistic, although avoiding direct criticism of the ruling family – to appoint a former KGB officer to edit its news. On 18 March he changed the Constitution so that it permits him to stay in office for as many terms as he wants. In the end of June he plans to change the NGO and media laws in order to ban foreign funding of the remnants of independent civil society, and further tighten control over print media. The issue is still in the agenda of the imitated parliament. By 30 June the next round of bargain with the western allies may result in another ‘compromise,’ deadly for these pillars of democracy as well.

What supports the international negligence? In other words, what poison makes blind the democrats out there in the West?

One eye is poisoned by energy resources and geopolitical competition with Russia for Central Asia and South Caucasus. The US and EU believe that Mr. Aliyev has pro-Russian policy in front of him as a viable option, and that therefore they should please him all the time. The other eye is poisoned by the American and European wishful thinking about the chances for resolution of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan any time soon.

Both views are mistaken. Obviously, Baku cultivates them well. However, if Mr. Aliyev turns his back to US and Europe in foreign policy, he will lose both political legitimacy and credibility among the people. He knows this. Azerbaijanis still want to be in the mainstream of global affairs, and are suspicious about full-fledged friendship with the former metropolis. The centuries-long history of Russian-Armenian strategic alliance in the Caucasus is well-known. It spurred the independence movement in Azerbaijan in the late 1980s to the degree that it was more massive and powerful than in the Baltic republics. In addition, divorce with the West does not guarantee Ilham a happy marriage with Moscow. The latter may have its own plans about the future partner in Baku.

As far as proximity of peace in Karabakh is concerned, this is also a fiction, long exploited by Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents for political survival. In addition, previous and current ‘windows of opportunity’ for breakthrough were living in the virtual world of individual careers of involved western diplomats, and had nothing to do with the reality on the ground. Russian-Western joint mediation cannot and will not produce peaceful solution to the conflict in the visible future.

By setting aside their groundless worries about Aliyev’s possible affiliation with Moscow, and giving up the wrong expectations about closeness of progress at talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the United States and Europe would be able to articulate more clearly the democracy agenda. Probably that will put an end to the bad memories of Baghdad in Baku.