Council for a Community of Democracies

Azerbaijan in Context

Azerbaijan held parliamentary elections on November 6, 2005. President Aliyev was elected in 2003 amid reports of voter intimidation, unequal opportunity for candidates and other electoral inconsistencies. He has been said to have “inherited” the presidency from his father. On May 11, Aliyev decreed that he would make sure that the parliamentary elections were fair and free.

Despite assurances by Aliyev that parliamentary elections would be free and fair, police consistently used violence to break up opposition rallies in the lead up to the November 6 elections. This has caused the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to express dismay about the prospects for a fair election. An OSCE October 19 press release quoted their ambassador in Baku as saying:

The increasing number of violent incidents, the use of excessive and unjustified force against demonstrators, as well as questionable detentions and mass arrests are a major concern for us.

These developments are not in line with international election standards and are inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the Presidential decree of 11 May.

The Associated Press, on October 1, reported that opposition protesters were consistently met with police violence. The Washington Post, in an October 3 report by Philip Kennicott, also described how violence was used to break up political rallies. Video of police attacking protestors accompanies the online version of the article. The Post article also describes extensive reports of intimidation, threats, and violence by local authorities on parliamentary candidates all over the country.

An Op/Ed in the October 24 Washington Post by Jackson Diehl examines the Bush administration’s involvement in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. In his piece, “An Oil-Rich Test for Bush,” Diehl explains how the Bush administration is trying to “translate its pro-democracy rhetoric into action” in Azerbaijan. He observes that a more democratic Azerbaijan might result in a stronger strategic relationship with the US. For example, a democratic Azerbaijan would give the US a foothold in Central Asia, possibly help Azerbaijan resolve their war with Armenia, and provide a rebuke to the non-liberal actions of Uzbekistan and other “strongman” neighbors. Diehl draws attention to the fact that the Bush administration has chosen the OCSE as the arbiter of whether or not the election will be determined as fair and democratic.

An Associated Press article by Henry Meyer of October 19 argues that US pressure on Azerbaijan to hold fair elections is somewhat “ambivalent.” Meyer attributes this ambivalence to Western investment in natural resources. Azerbaijan is rich in natural resources, including oil. The opening of a pipeline to the Caspian Sea promises to bring money to Azerbaijan. Meyer contrasts Bush’s treatment of Azerbaijan to Ukraine, noting the tone is quite different. Bush’s October letter to the Azerbaijan’s president Aliyev stated, “I welcome your commitment to a free and fair election, which is essential to sustaining a strong partnership between our two countries.” Meyers compared this to Bush’s much more direct statements in the case of the Ukrainian election, which threatened punitive measures if the elections were not handled fairly. However, the US has not been completely silent. The Voice of America reported that Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried told President Aliyev on his visit to Azerbaijan that, “the burden is really on the government to demonstrate that the election is free and fair, and you've got 17 days to try to make, to try to set this good impression."

“In today’s globalized world, democracy requires support from without,” wrote Farhad Husseinov in an International Herald Tribune Op/Ed piece of September 28. Husseinov argued that freedom should not be sacrificed for stability in Muslim Azerbaijan as it has been in the Middle East. Husseinov argued that Azerbaijan’s best hope for democratic reform rested with the pro-Western bloc headed by the Musavat party.

The chairman of the Musavat party, Isa Gambar, was in Washington, DC on September 27. James Morrison of the Washington Times reported that Gambar called for the Bush administration to give substance to the pro-democracy statements he championed in his second inaugural address. Gambar also sought a US Senate resolution supporting Azerbaijani democracy. Speaking to US security interests, Gambar argued that a democratic Azerbaijan would benefit America strategically beyond the war on terrorism. He argued that a democratic Azerbaijan would join the US as a strong proponent of Iranian democracy, since there are 30 million ethnic Azeris in Iran. Gambar did not ask for US support of his party, the Times noted. Instead he endorsed the idea that US pressure accompanied with international observation might deter the Azerbaijani government from using violent, repressive measures.

In the current issue of Democracy at Large (Vol.1 No. 4) published by IFES, a respected election monitoring organization Sarvat Maharramov draws attention to the role that civil society is playing in trying to ensure free elections. His article entitled, “Azerbaijan’s 2005 Elections: Can CSO’s Seize the Moment?” suggests that civil society organizations within the country might be able to effect democratic change. While somewhat extensively involved, civil society organizations are somewhat hamstrung by a number of factors. Law prohibits the organizations from monitoring elections if over 30% of their funding has foreign origins. Maharromov notes that due to the scarcity of funding within Azerbaijan, this excludes the most active and legitimate organizations from monitoring elections. Smaller organizations and individuals are also “more susceptible to intimidation.” Notwithstanding, Philip Kennicott, in his Washington Post article, notes, “international election monitors are pouring into the country.”

The billions of dollars that will enter the country over the next few years may bolster the public standing of whatever leadership is in power. Therefore, these parliamentary elections have significant implications. Without democracy, however, the money may not be equitably distributed. The direction and influence of international scrutiny as wealth increases in Azerbaijan, remains to be seen. Will the oil resources cause the international community to look the other way, or will the attention being focused on Azerbaijan’s election stimulate interest in democracy promotion over the longer run?

[Update: 16 November 2005]

Roughly 20,000 protesters gathered in Azerbaijan's capital Sunday, November 13, to call for the government’s resignation in the aftermath of the contested parliamentary elections. Oppositional leaders and international observers have criticized the November 6th elections as irregular and unfair, and the government has been accused of fixing the results to ensure the ruling New Azerbaijan Party would remain in power.

Election authorities have admitted to irregularities in four of Azerbaijan’s 125 parliamentary districts. New elections will be held in three of the districts, while a recount in the fourth awarded the seat to Ali Kerimli, one of the opposition leaders. According to the Los Angeles Times, results could be revised in another 16 districts.

Opposition leaders from the People's Front of Azerbaijan Party, Ali the National Unity Movement, and the Musavat Party have signed a statement to refuse their elected positions. In a statement, the leaders said because the election did not comply with international standards, and because their parties do not recognize the election results, they cannot participate in the work of the parliament.

[Update: 15 December 2005]

On December 1, 2005, the Constitutional Court of Azerbaijan annulled the results of the November 6 parliamentary election in six constituencies and endorsed the results from 115 constituencies. The results in a total of ten constituencies have now been either annulled or reversed. Run-off elections for these constituencies have been scheduled for May 13, 2006.

The United States has issued a statement welcoming this decision and encouraging the Azerbaijani government to continue to take steps to restore the credibility of the electoral process. Several factions of the opposition to the ruling party, however, claims the elections that have been annulled were originally awarded to opposition candidates, and the decision by the Constitutional Court has done nothing to counter election fraud. These factions have asked the Constitutional court to begin the process to impeach President Ilham Aliyev.

[Update: 6 June 2006]

On June 6, 2006, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair jointly urged Azerbaijani President IIham Aliyev to keep making democratic changes. Bush reiterated that “the United States will continue to work in partnership with [Aliyev] for the promotion of world energy security and the creation of a prosperous, peaceful and democratic future for Azerbaijan's people and this vital region." In addition, Blair stated his hope that Azerbaijan would create closer ties with democratic organizations, like the European Union and NATO. Currently, Azerbaijan is not a member state of the EU, WTO, NATO, or ICC, among others.

European institutions in particular have been pressuring the Azerbaijani government to make further democratic changes. In April 2005, the EU began to develop the European Neighborhood Policy with countries further eastward, including Azerbaijan. The EU-Azerbaijan partnership is based on respect for democracy, international law, human rights, and market economy principles. With an improved human rights record, Azerbaijan will be afforded substantial economic, political, and cultural relations with the EU.

The Council of Europe, of which Azerbaijan is a member, has also tried to address their human rights abuses by demanding the release of political prisoners, advocating greater pluralism, and by decentralizing executive powers.

Furthermore, US-funded democracy programs in Azerbaijan focuses on strengthening the rule of law, improving the electoral process, supporting an independent media, encouraging citizens to partake in political procedures, and promoting NGOs. The US, however, also tends to focus more on military cooperation and oil interests in the country.

Unfortunately, the outcome of the 2003 presidential and 2005 parliamentary elections raised concern among Western nations about Aliyev's commitment to democracy in Azerbaijan, which is a key source of oil. The US hopes to finalize Azerbaijan’s Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, which is set to function in July 2006. This pipeline is estimated to transport the world's third-largest reserves, surpassing Russia and Iran. The question remains, however, to what extent democratic development will influence US policy when energy security is at stake in our oil trade relations with Azerbaijan.

Timeline

1991 – Azerbaijan gains independence after collapse of Soviet Union
1994 – Azerbaijan signs ceasfire with Armenia; some areas as still controlled by Armenia and there are hundreds of thousands of internally displaced.
2000 – Parliamentary elections last held
2003 – Presidential election (Ilham Aliyev)
November 2004 - Transparency International ranks Azerbaijan 140th out of 146 countries in terms of corruption
April 2005 – EU initiates European Neighborhood Policy
November 2005 – Parliamentary elections held following protests urging free and fair elections (ruling New Azerbaijan Party wins majority)
April 2006 - President Bush meets with President Aliyev at White House
July 2006 - Azerbaijan’s Baku-Ceyhan pipeline becomes functional

Resources