Azerbaijani Opposition Outraged Over Evident US Preference for Ilham Aliyev

Ilham Aliyev, Azerbaijan's presidential heir apparent to his ailing father Heidar, has arrived in the United States. His itinerary reportedly includes a meeting with top Bush administration officials. Azerbaijani opposition leaders have denounced Washington's apparent blessing of a dynastic-style political succession in Baku, saying the Bush administration's behavior is undermining US stabilization goals in strategically important Azerbaijan.

Ilham, who has taken a leave of absence as premier to run as the ruling New Azerbaijan Party's candidate in October 15 presidential elections, traveled to the United States on August 21 ostensibly to visit his father, who is receiving treatment for a serious heart ailment at the Cleveland Clinic. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. According to Azerbaijani state television, Ilham will hold meetings in the coming days with US legislators. He is also reportedly scheduled to attend a luncheon organized by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and including high-level Bush administration officials.

Opposition leaders are furious at the Bush administration for sanctioning the transfer of power in Azerbaijan from Heidar Aliyev to Ilham. The opposition in Baku maintains that such a dynastic succession violates not only Azerbaijani legislation, but also runs contrary to the democratic principles that supposedly serve as the foundation of US foreign policy. Earlier in August, US President George Bush sent a congratulatory note to Ilham Aliyev following his appointment as prime minister. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

"People are very surprised that officials in a country that is considered to be a pillar of democracy [the United States] have taken such a position," said Etibar Mamedov, the leader of the opposition National Independence Party in Baku. "The United States is basically trying to justify the violation of democracy and the regime's attempt to establish a monarchy in Azerbaijan."

Opposition leaders view the planned meeting between Bush administration officials and Ilham as an improper move by Washington to support a particular presidential candidate. Such a signal increases the chances that incumbent authority in Baku will engage in fraudulent practices in the presidential election to ensure Ilham's victory, local observers contend.

"Any meeting in Washington would be covered widely in the [Azerbaijani] press and understood in Azerbaijan as an endorsement for his [Ilham's] candidacy," said Hikmet Hajizade, a Baku-based political analyst. "The United States should not be playing favorites."

"You can already see the huge disappointment and the growing distrust of the West among the Azeri public," Hajizade continued. "People say that the West just wants our oil and this is the bottom line."

Bush administration officials accept the legitimacy of Ilham's installation as prime minister, saying that the process conformed to the Azerbaijani constitution. The relevant portions of the country's Basic Law concerning the presidential succession process were amended in 2002 during a referendum that came under criticism for various shortcomings. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archives]. Some independent analysts maintain that a political transition that qualifies as constitutional should not necessarily be conflated with democratic process.

"This is not an era of monarchy, so you can't simply say that the king is dead, long live the king. So, any attempt to dynastic succession is always presaged by constitutional reform that is designed to make this succession legally legitimate," said Martha Brill Olcott, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "But that doesn't mean that it is not a dynastic succession."

"There is difference between constitutional and democratic," Olcott added. "Something could be constitutional and still not be democratic. Constitutional just means that the behavior of people corresponds to the law. But the law is often times designed to create an undemocratic outcome. In this case, the test of democracy is not whether it is constitutional."

Given the apparent US support for Ilham, opposition leaders are now reevaluating their strategy for the October 15 election. According to the Turan news agency, four main opposition leaders are expected to convene in London on August 24 for negotiations that could possibly result in the naming of a unified opposition presidential candidate. A single opposition candidate, competing in a free and fair election, could pose a serious challenge to the ruling party's ability to maintain power. During Azerbaijan's independent era, the inability of various opposition movements to cooperate has diluted its power at the ballot box.

A recent State Department statement expressed concern about Azerbaijani government practices during the early stages of the presidential campaign, especially the administration's refusal to register prominent Aliyev critics as candidates and the harassment of opposition leaders in Baku. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The statement also reiterated a US call for a free and fair vote. Opposition leaders now ridicule the statement in light of the Bush administration's willingness to embrace Ilham.

Opposition leaders vow that their campaign tactics will conform to "the constitution." However, given that they now believe the United States is unwilling to exert pressure on the Aliyev administration to hold a clean vote, there is always the chance that the opposition could adopt more confrontational tactics, especially if they start to feel that their future ability to participate in the country's political life is threatened.

"It is very easy for people to sit back in Washington, Ankara and Moscow and say that this is an ideal situation and a stable solution that will keep Azerbaijan where it's best for us," Olcott said, referring to a dynastic political succession in Baku . "But really only the Azerbaijani people can decide their own future."

"Solutions that look like they promote stability, when viewed from the outside, often produce the outcome that is most feared," Olcott cautioned. "The people from the outside who are viewing the situation know nothing about or very little about the internal dynamics of the societies that they're talking about."