How does the government's "dialogue policy" with the opposition end?

Although there had been constant calls for "dialogue" from opposition organizations, the government usually had not responded to these calls. The government had maintained a distance between the entire spectrum of the opposition and pushed them out of the political life of society. The essence of the strategy towards the opposition was to limit the contact of the opposition with the society as much as possible and to virtually eliminate the opposition as a political institution.

What has changed? Why has the government felt the need for dialogue? What was the purpose?

The socio-political environment created by social networks in recent years, the socio-economic problems caused by the pandemic, the escalation of pre-war military-political relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the still unknown geopolitical upheavals have led to some changes in the government's policy towards the opposition.

After a long break, messages were given from the ruling camp about the importance of dialogue with the opposition. From the beginning of 2020, the Presidential Administration began to hold individual meetings with political parties. Although no detailed information was provided about the meetings, there were some grounds for initial discussions in the community. The Presidential Administration announced that a meeting was held between representatives of 49 parties and the representative of the government, Adalat Valiyev. In particular, the recent registration of nine new political parties has intensified discussions in this direction.

In fact, real contacts and open dialogue between the government and the opposition could have a positive impact on the system of political relations in society. Restrictions on political rights could have been lifted. The problems regarding freedom of assembly and political prisoners could have been solved, and political conditions could have been created for democratic elections. Therefore, the "dialogue discussion" naturally raised certain expectations in society.

Who took part in the dialogue? What common problems were discussed? What has been achieved in solving political problems?

The 45 parties that legally, politically, and actually acknowledged the existence of the government stated that they were in this process without any preconditions. In fact, it would be surprising if they behaved differently. In addition, the absolute majority of the 58 political parties operating in the country participated in this process in various ways.

At a meeting between 45 political parties and officials of the presidential administration on September 9, 2021, issues such as the role of political parties in society, the proportional electoral system, the issue of political prisoners, freedom of speech and press were discussed. However, no practical steps have been taken to address these issues. The problem of political prisoners and the crisis over political rights in the country continue.

Observations show that it has not been possible to discuss and resolve any issues beyond the interests of the government. All contacts have taken place when the government needed it. The "dialogue" initiative was born not from a strategic vision for the future of the country but mainly from the current interests of the government.

We would like to draw attention to a few nuances. On the eve of the 75th session of the UN General Assembly, the dialogue between the government and the opposition was the main topic of the ruling media. Speaking at a meeting dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the UN on September 24, 2020, President Ilham Aliyev said, “We launched broad political dialogue initiative several months ago. All major political parties supported this initiative. The political dialogue which successfully started would help to strengthen our political system and serve the cause of sustainable development of Azerbaijan.” 

Then, on September 27, 2020, 50 political parties operating in the country signed a statement in support of the President in connection with the large-scale provocation of the Armenian armed forces against our republic. Also, apart from individual congratulations, on November 8, 2020, 50 political parties sent a joint congratulatory message to the President on the liberation of Shusha. The government tried to show the public that most of the parties were with it by organizing a joint visit of the parties to the liberated territories.

Shortly afterward, the dialogue was forgotten. As if such an issue has never existed. Since the party proposing the topics and initiating the initiatives was only the government, no new proposal came from it and the discussions stopped.

When the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Turkey signed the Shusha Declaration on June 15, 2021, in Shusha, the political parties involved in the dialogue process were remembered again. 48 political parties re-signed a joint document. In fact, the political parties involved in the dialogue process appeared on the political scene when the government needed them.

It should be noted that most of the parties involved in the dialogue process had the opportunity to solve their personal problems but failed to solve common problems. The representative of the government did not even hesitate to openly say that some party leaders have solved their personal problems.

The main organization that did not participate in the dialogue process was the APFP. The APFP wanted the topics to be discussed in the dialogue to be open and tried to clarify in advance what positive impact it would have on the system of political relations in society. It became clear from the approaches that the government did not intend to hold an open dialogue.

The President of the country has repeatedly stated, “APFP-Musavat parties became history. They are not in the political arena.” Especially after the 2015 parliamentary and 2018 presidential elections, there was an open political will in this direction. It was already known that the government did not want the APFP in the dialogue process. No matter how contradictory it may seem, the APFP also considered it more appropriate not to discuss the dialogue with the government in such a format. Whether the APFP participated in the dialogue or not, the outcome would not change for it. The political will of the government was to dismantle this organization. In general, the government intends to weaken or, if possible, neutralize its critics.

The socio-political environment created by social networks did not allow the opposition, especially the APFP, to be completely eliminated from public opinion. Attempts to weaken the opposition with administrative resources could not be completely effective. In 2019, the APFP again demonstrated with mass rallies that it was the main locomotive of the squares. The January 19 rally, the October 8 picket, and the attempt to hold an uncoordinated rally on October 19 attracted attention not only within the country but also at the international level. It was not possible to prevent the politicized active part of the people from seeing the APFP as an alternative political force.

Certain questions are raised in society from time to time. Is the government changing? Can a new era of opposition begin? What will the dialogue lead to?

With the current political system in place, major personnel changes are taking place in the presidential administration and other government bodies. In the country's management system, new and young personnel are brought to management in other areas, except for the power ministries and law enforcement agencies.

"Dialogue" did not bring any significant changes to the system of public relations. Hopes for political reform are fading. The parties involved in the dialogue process did not gain a majority in public opinion. These organizations have neither been able to gain moral support from society, nor been able to approach those who did not engage in dialogue, nor gained additional political dividends from the government.

Local and regional conditions for the beginning of a new era of opposition may gradually change in a favorable direction. Analysis of the real socio-political situation in the country shows that the opposition forces need to reconsider their strategies. Ways must be found to turn the virtual political revival in society into a real organizational process. The possibility of radical political and legal changes in the country in the coming years seems increasingly realistic.

Nasimi Mammadli