The third boycott - without legal consequences

Meanwhile, all opposition structures decided not to nominate a candidate for extraordinary presidential "elections" and boycott the coming elections. The public of the country has ambiguously apprehended this decision of the opposition and is looking for answers to some questions. Can the opposition's decision on the boycott be correct, will the boycott lead to political and legal results, what will be the attitude of influential international structures to the "elections", can the results of the elections be recognized?

Despite the lack of clear answers to such questions, it is possible to make certain assumptions. First of all, we will briefly consider the reasons for the non-participation of the opposition in the elections. The government purposefully completely disabled the electoral system of the republic. From the legislative and from the practical point of view in the present atmosphere the alternative candidates are "voluntarily" excluded from participation in the electoral process. Basically, free media has been silenced, the resources of the independent civil society and opposition parties have been limited, and deprived them of the opportunity to obtain legal finances and communicate freely with citizens. There is only one name for elections and a banal imitation around them. Any professional observer will agree that the elections as a specific political means and a basic right do not exist anymore.

In this situation, the participation of the opposition in the "elections" could not bring any political and legal dividends to either it or society. Under the current political conditions and elective conjuncture, an opposition candidate cannot be elected president, winning by the number of votes. The opposition cannot, cannot use the opportunity, to popularize itself in society, to reorganize, to prove with facts it possesses the falsification of elections. In addition, there is no longer any provision for free air time for candidates, which would give an opportunity to criticize domestic and foreign policies, illegal actions of the government. In everyday life the opposition has more opportunities in social networks and rallies to voice criticism, than during elections. The reality is that the ruling team does not cause any concern for participation in the "election" of other candidates than the candidate from power.

So far, in the current realities, the options for choosing the opposition are between the "bad and the worst." So it is very difficult to talk about the serious political and legal consequences of participation in elections and their boycott. It seems that the opposition's decision to boycott extraordinary "elections" is a form of peaceful protest against the existing political and legal situation, and it was forced to accept it.

What does the opposition want to achieve by means of a boycott? Apart from boycotting the "elections" with the opposition's wrong step, we will try to analyze its possible effect. First of all, we note that the boycott itself is one of the tried and tested forms of an effective political action, and its effectiveness in the election is related to a number of factors. Without touching on the details, we can say that in the socio-political realities of Azerbaijan there are no prerequisites for the effectiveness of this action.

The country's opposition used for the first time tactics of boycott in the presidential elections of 1998. Then the reason that led the opposition to take this step was the disregard for its proposals on improving the electoral legislation. Along with obvious reasons, a certain role in this issue was played by the fact that the opposition was not able to decide on a single candidate. At that time, the opposition was very strong, the authorities - much weaker than now, and the society showed much higher political activity than today. The country was clamped in the grip of financial and economic problems and social difficulties. Democratic institutions were destroyed, the effectiveness of socio-political structures and free media was considered quite high. However, under such favorable conditions, the opposition could not profit from the boycott strategy. Shortly thereafter, it was decided to prepare for the municipal and parliamentary elections and the previous tactics of the struggle was removed from the agenda. Studies show that the boycott of the opposition in 1998 did not mobilize society to fight, did not contribute to the international isolation of the government, did not strengthen the opposition and did not weaken the authorities.

The opposition once again resorted to tactics of boycotting in the presidential elections of 2008. The reasons were the absence of an atmosphere of free elections in the country, complete control of power over election commissions and other issues were named. The analysis shows that the conditions for a boycott in 2008 were much less favorable for the opposition than in 1998. Using oil revenues, the authorities went to the elections, achieving socio-economic stability, establishing mainly supervision of the free press and civil society, and the opposition - in a significantly weakened state. International structures were also considered with the advantages of the authorities and did not apply measures of effective pressure against it. Thus, the boycott tactics of 2008 also had no political and legal consequences either in the country, or on the international scene. After the elections in the country and in international relations, no problems were observed.

The opposition had to boycott the elections for the third time. Finally, can this decision lead to political and legal results? With a "relative majority of votes" in the majority electoral system, a boycott cannot have legal consequences at all, because the electoral legislation of the country does not provide for a "quorum" - the minimum sufficient limit for the participation of voters. So, in spite of even the lowest percentage of voters' participation in the elections, they are considered valid and there will be no problems of legitimacy. Under the present passive state of society, it is also unrealistic to force the government to hold democratic elections, exerting political pressure on it through a boycott. There are no local and international favorable conditions for this. And there is little hope that it will be possible to attract international attention to anti-democratic elections in Azerbaijan and take any effective steps.

It should also be taken into account that the announcement of early elections did not cause any stiff reaction of authoritative international structures. From this point of view, Bridget Brink, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, who was in the days of declaring this decision, paid a visit to Azerbaijan after the meeting with President Ilham Aliyev. Despite the fact that the meeting had an exchange of views on the development of democracy, the rule of law, the protection of human rights, in general, it expressed satisfaction with support for economic projects, security cooperation, including a joint contribution to peacekeeping operations. In an interview with the head of Azerbaijan, the US representative tactfully recalled the country's obligations and made recommendations in connection with the extraordinary elections. In this context, there was not sharp reaction from the European Union. On the contrary, there were statements about the continuation of the expansion of cooperation opportunities.

The real picture in the country is such that even without the call of the opposition to boycott the elections, citizens do not show interest in participating in them. The total falsification of the results of voting in all elections actually shaken the voters' confidence, and caused their passive participation. Currently, the opposition's ability to consolidate society around the idea of ​​a boycott, create a political and organizational basis for the "Fair Elections Movement" across the country, is significantly limited. The opposition does not have a concrete and clear strategy, and low political activity of the society does not allow to provide effective resistance. The international community's hard steps are also excluded.

According to the democracy index, the elections in free and partly free countries are considered the next chance for society, and are the main indicator in social processes; but in non-free states, in which freedom is mostly suppressed, elections cannot provide society with any chance at all. So neither the opposition, nor independent persons should deceive themselves, saying that the "elections" are another suitable moment. And in this regard, society should also not hope in vain. The opposition is obliged to develop a new strategy for the implementation of peaceful and mass democratic processes and to achieve its gradual implementation. The only phenomenon that radically distinguishes the current boycott from the previous one is the presence and power of the influence of social networks. This resource can play an exceptional role in the activation of society.

Taking into account the complexity of the situation in the country and the region, the authorities are obliged to take urgent steps to eliminate political and economic problems. If we do not put an end to the moral and psychological and economic-political decline, in the coming years the country will inevitably face various threats. Deepening crisis can only be stopped by radical political and economic reforms. Now there is a chance for positive measures to carry out institutional structural reforms and improve the management system. If in this situation the authorities do not take advantage of this opportunity and try to preserve the traditional situation at any price, then this may have dangerous prospects for the society.