EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - As Elections Approach, Azerbaijan Appears Unmoved by International Criticism

EURASIA INSIGHT

AS ELECTIONS APPROACH, AZERBAIJAN APPEARS UNMOVED BY INTERNATIONAL CRITICISM

Kenan Kazimoglu 9/25/00

Azerbaijan’s Central Election Commission’s (CEC) decision to bar opposition political parties from competing in the country’s upcoming parliamentary election has drawn a mixed response from the international community. On one hand, the United States has been restrained in its comments on the election ban. On the other, the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has issued a sharply worded rebuke of the election commission’s decision. Meanwhile, Azerbaijani officials have dismissed criticism of the electoral process as "non-objective," and appear determined to adhere to the electoral framework set by the CEC.

At least five opposition parties � including the Musavat party and the Democratic Party of Azerbaijan � have been barred from contesting the November 5 parliamentary election. In each instance, the CEC ruled that the disqualified parties failed to collect the requisite 50,000 campaign petition signatures to appear on the ballot.

On September 22, the US State Department, reacting to the ban of Musavat, issued a statement that said the US embassy in Baku "is monitoring the pre-election situation in Azerbaijan very closely, and is working with other Western embassies and international institutions to encourage a free and fair election process this November." In addition, the State Department statement urged Azerbaijan to expedite an appeal by Musavat for a review of the CEC ban.

The CEC’s decision to disqualify Musavat reverses a decision it took in early September to register all of Azerbaijan’s opposition parties, including the Azerbaijan Democratic Party. On September 6, the United States applauded that action, stating that it represented significant progress in Azerbaijan’s election preparations.

Now, election observers have noted the conspicuous lack of concern in the State Department’s September 22 statement. US diplomats provided little more than a narrative summary of the actions taken by the CEC. In contrast to the strong approval with which it greeted improvements to the electoral process in early September, the State Department came out with a formulaic response that seems determined to avoid expressions of criticism or disappointment.

Such reticence has not been lost upon democratic activists in Azerbaijan. Opposition party members, independent journalists and NGO leaders, who all rely on US support, interpret the State Department’s neutral response as a retreat. In their view, democratic state-building is currently less of a priority than reaping oil and gas profits. Indeed, President Aliyev signed the 20th contract with an American oil company during his visit to Washington on September 11-12. The State Department’s reaction is also viewed as yet another example of "diplomacy," a decision by official Washington to close its eyes rather than close commercial and political doors.

Speeches made by both US and Azerbaijani officials at the US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce’s annual meeting on September 11 provided attentive observers with plenty of reasons to speculate about a possible political bargain. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. High-ranking State Department officials made no reference to the upcoming elections in their remarks. At the same time, President Aliyev declared that the elections were an internal affair.

President Aliyev has taken steps to shield himself from criticism. He was quick to point out that he was not in Azerbaijan when the CEC issued its ruling disqualifying two of the major opposition parties. Analysts in Baku have said that such an excuse was meant to serve as proof of the CEC’s independence from the government, as well as the president’s lack of culpability for "irregularities" in the election process.

In sharp contrast to the muted US response, OSCE/ODIHR has been outspoken in its criticism of the CEC’s action. A statement issued by the international organization on September 22 said: "The ODIHR regrets that political parties are excluded from the election based only on a suspicion of forged signatures. The ODIHR further deplores that these parties are not provided the benefit of further verification to ascertain the veracity of the suspicion, and the opportunity to remedy discrepancies before a final decision of the Central Election Commission is taken."

This is not the first time the CEC has faced OSCE criticism. The OSCE characterized the methodology used to check registration signatures in 1995 as "extremely flawed and suspect." Musavat was also banned from competing in the 1995 parliamentary vote. The ban was a primary factor in the UN/OSCE joint observer mission’s ruling that the election process was neither free nor fair.

Ambassador Nelson Ledsky, Manager of the National Democratic Institute’s program in Azerbaijan, was in Baku during the 1995 elections. Commenting recently on Musavat’s disqualification in 2000, he lamented that political conditions in Azerbaijan had not changed over the last five years, and said that "history is repeating itself."

However, Azerbaijani officials do not appear moved by such criticism. The CEC’s ban, and government’s backing of the commission’s action, can only lower expectations for a free and fair election in November.

Editor�s Note: Kennan Kazimoglu is the Washington correspondent for Azerbaijan’s Turan News Agency. He is also a regular contributor to the BBC and VOA.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.