OPPOSITION GAINS CONFIDENCE AS AZERBAIJAN’S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION APPROACHES
10/06/03

Opposition leaders in Azerbaijan are encouraged by a recent poll that shows a significant decline in support for the ruling party candidate, Ilham Aliyev. The polling data’s release comes at a time when campaign-related violence is escalating, raising international concerns about stability in Baku.

The poll, conducted by the Center for Political and Economic Research (FAR Center) with support from the US National Endowment for Democracy, found that the opposition leader Isa Gambar, who leads the Musavat Party, was the most preferred candidate, with 36.3 percent of respondents saying that they would vote for him in the October 15 presidential election. Ilham Aliyev, the ruling New Azerbaijan Party’s candidate was second, receiving 27.4 percent support. The other leading opposition candidate, Azerbaijan National Independence Party (ANIP) leader Etibar Mamedov, trailed far behind with 7.2 percent support.

The poll of 1,000 individuals was conducted between September 10-20. In the midst of the polling period. a third top opposition candidate, Popular Front leader Ali Karimli, announced he was withdrawing from the race and endorsing Mamedov. Karimli’s support in the poll stood at only 3.6 percent. Seven other presidential candidates split the remainder of the vote. Overall 10.7 percent of those polled said they "did not know" who they would vote for.

In comparison to a similar poll conducted in May, Aliyev’s support has markedly declined, dropping over 13 percent, while Gambar has picked up over 15 percentage points. Mamedov’s support also improved a modest 3 percent.

In the September poll, 54 percent responded "yes" to the question: "Do you feel a change in authority is needed?" Another 12.1 percent conditionally agreed, saying incumbent authority needed to go but "not during the next four to five years." Almost 18 percent said no change was needed. Just over 15 percent said they "did not know." In May, 44 percent of respondents felt that a change in government was necessary, while 22 percent expressed no need for a change.

A clear plurality expects the election to be marred by voting irregularities. When asked if they felt the 2003 presidential election would be "free and fair," 46 percent said "no." Almost 27 percent responded "yes," and another 27 percent said they "didn’t know." In May, 49 percent expected the voting results to be falsified, and 25 percent said it would be a freely contested election.

The September poll found that over 75 percent of respondents said they intended to vote, while 24 percent said they would be willing to "participate in massive social acts of protest" in the event that election results are falsified.

In a commentary on the polling data, the FAR Center indicated that the administration’s attempt to engineer a dynastic transition of power -- from ailing incumbent Heidar Aliyev to his son Ilham – faced a difficult challenge. "Ilham Aliyev has shown that he is no Heidar Aliyev," the Far Center commentary said. "A unified opposition candidate could beat the incumbent party’s candidate in the first round."

Amid signs that Ilham Aliyev’s support is shaky, tension between opposition campaign activists and ruling party supporters has risen in early October. The most serious confrontation to date occurred October 2 in the Saatli District, where hundreds of pro-government partisans clashed in the district center with activists from the ANIP-Popular Front coalition. Those involved in the riot possessed a variety of weapons including "wooden truncheons, iron bars, chains and even axes," the Zerkalo daily reported.

"A serious battled started," the newspaper said. "Witnesses say that dozens of people on both sides were seriously injured."

Citing the Saatli violence, Mamedov, the ANIP leader, accused the government of fomenting violence, suggesting that authorities were desperate to retain power. He went on to call the government’s alleged tactics "dangerous."

"The country is rolling toward anarchy," Mamedov said in comments broadcast October 4 on state television. "This is being done deliberately. The reason is ... that groups among authorities ... are trying to promote a young person called Ilham Aliyev, and are using him to fight for control of the government."

The confrontational mood in Azerbaijan is prompting growing concern in the West. A US State Department statement, released October 4, characterized the presidential election as "critical for Azerbaijan’s democratic development." The British embassy in Baku issued a similar appeal for stability and a fair election.

According to the State Department, the US government is allocating $2 million to promote election transparency, including "funds for 150 international observers." The statement cautioned the Azerbaijani government, expressing concern about the "harassment and violence against opposition and human rights activists." It also criticized the Central Election Commission’s decision not to publish voter lists. At the same time, the US State Department said opposition parties "have important responsibilities in this election," adding that government critics "should campaign vigorously and conduct themselves peacefully."

Meanwhile, Andreas Gross, a member of a monitoring group operating under the auspices of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, suggested that anything could be expected in Azerbaijan before, during and after the presidential vote, the Turan news agency reported October 4. "The situation is especially difficult in Azerbaijani districts where violations of democratic norms are universal," Gross said.

Email this article | Printer-Friendly Version
Posted October 6, 2003 © Eurasianet
http://www.eurasianet.org

	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.