Why do not authorities provide freedom of assemblies?

Owing to the current increase of social and political activity in the country, there is a simultaneous growth of initiatives both from the authorities and the opposition. The authorities are seeking to create the appearance of change in the traditional management methods. Availing of the same situation, the opposition is hopeful of enhancing its political strength and radical changes.

In considering that the authorities are actually restricting radical democratic reforms through elections, the opposition is engaged in gaining political strength through rallying.

In turn, the authorities are busy with creating artificial barrier against the opposition to disallow it exercising the right to the freedom of assemblies as set forth in the Constitution and respective laws, as well as international accords of which Azerbaijan is a member to. In spite of the fact that the opposition has repeatedly asked for a rally, the authorities infringed the law to deny the opposition"s right. Why do the authorities decline from providing the freedom of assemblies? How long are they going to ban it? What do the authorities win and what does the opposition lose? What is the public response? Let"s look at the current situation around the issues stated above.

Why are the authorities unwilling to provide the right to freedom of assemblies?

The point to be emphasized is that the social displeasure and political activity of the society are presently higher than before. For some time past, the authorities are no longer in position to dictate a desirable political agenda of the day or change the existing reality. Nowadays, the authorities are challenged to ensure or not the freedom of assembly.

It must be acknowledged that protracted ignorance of this right does political and psychological harm to the authorities. Not only active dissatisfied part of the society but even members of the ruling party and its adherents do understand that the power strongly fears mass opposition protests.

The point is that the provision of the right to freedom of assemblies is pregnant with a large number of citizens at rallies. Observations demonstrate that the authorities" unlawful pressure against protesters brings to the opposite. Instead of climate of fear, tensions and anger are growing in society. When faced with damages to its corporate interests, the authorities never decline from openly infringing the law and rights. Under current situation, the ruling team is apprehensive of hesitations and uncertainty.

In this respect, high rostrum statements like "we provide the right to the freedom of assemblies" are far from authorities" confidence in their might. This thesis is meant for those considered by internal audience the "opposition for the opposition." Certain, pro-government groups are engaged in propagandizing ideas that holding rallies of this sort meets the interests of the authorities. Many people have come to believe in these theses. However, this thesis has been ignored and removed from the agenda by the authorities at a time when a growing number of people voices preparedness to attend opposition-staged rallies.

One of the main reasons of authorities" unwillingness to ensure the freedom of assemblies is their inability to predict a potential scale and result of a possible social mass protest action.

How long are the authorities minded to impose bans on rallies?

It is very difficult to identify a logical political explanation to the actions of the authorities. A particular approach is required to rely on private interests, sentiment of top officials, as well as the role of foreign influence. However, a number of questions arise from analysis of some steps that have been taken lately.

It is important to note that the authorities are resorting to various tricks to prevent mass meetings of the opposition. In particular, various positive-minded decrees and resolutions are issued to eliminate psychological factors that led to discontent of ordinary people, some social problems have partly been resolved, etc.

Cosmetically though, the authorities are eager to change their image into a positive side through the use of political means and even demonstrate their intention to implement reforms. In addition, they are seeking to pursue a new policy of social media in order to neutralize public opinion caused by social networks, look for ways, both inside and outside the country, to pull Internet users away from opposition resources and independent social media. In an attempt to limit the audience of popular bloggers and, instead, draw users to their virtual domain, the authorities are staging live shows, discussions and scandalous debates. Also, new tactical tricks against young bloggers acting in abroad and emigrants are worthy of a note. The point is about initiatives that aim to sow distrust among them, discourage them and make them decline from joining mass and personal protest actions. In addition, the authorities conduct anti-propaganda in order to blear the eyes of dissatisfied people, prevent them from joining the real opposition.

In an effort to prevent peace protest actions control by a common opposition center, the authorities have launched complex projects. As it appears impossible to weaken the opposition, as a source of danger, by an outside pressure, the authorities tend to use initiatives to split the opposition from inside.

At present, the authorities are seeking means to involve the opposition in force confrontation in order to defeat it and thus push the society aside from political processes. Probably, a consecutive ban on the constitutional right to the freedom of assemblies is a step the authorities are taking to force the opposition to commit violence. It is still believed that the authorities will seek to decline from providing the right to the freedom of assemblies until the disgusted population is willing to join opposition-staged rallies.

What are results of permanent violation of the freedom of assemblies?

It should be noted that continuation of such a policy under the existing social and political reality may lead to processes disfavoring the authorities. The authorities have adopted the law "On the Freedom of Assemblies" to guarantee citizens" right to this freedom. First of all, the authorities" unwillingness to provide the right to the freedom of assemblies is a serious legal violation. Beyond any doubt, this causes a ground for local and international courts to condemn the authorities.

The political aspect of the issue is also negative for the authorities. Given that the authorities fail to observe their international commitments, a fair condemnation by international organizations may increase. Moreover, given that expression of protest through legal means is restricted, the displeased people may take to unsanctioned protest actions which risks rising political tension inside the country. Note that a permanent violation of the right to the freedom of assemblies may lead to intensification of contradictions in the society and full loss of public legitimacy of the authorities.

What do the authorities gain from violating the right to the freedom of assemblies?

In spite of the fact that the authorities dispose of effective administrative apparatus and financial resources, they have essentially lost their political strength and are in position to wage a fair contest with their opponents. Should the authorities unimpededly provide the right to the freedom of assembly, they would face a danger of growth of public political activity and consolidation of their opponents.

It particularly fears an aggravation of the existing intra-power contradictions. At first sight, it seems that the authorities, violating the right to the freedom of assemblies, strengthens their position. However, an in-depth analysis reveals that the authorities are making a big mistakes and getting weaker. It is understood that signs of a new political stage have already been apparent in the country. Prudently though, the authorities feel it is necessary to provide their new political image to the society.

It should be added that if a new political approach fails, the society gradually will come to understanding that stability guarantee tends to weaken. The authorities realize the danger of continuous management by means of traditional conjuncture, so they are seeking to finalize changes in several ways.

What does the opposition lose in existing situation? What is the public response?

The authorities have fully barred the opposition from elections. The opposition"s only opportunity is to stage protest actions with involvement of those dissatisfied with the current situation, following which it will be able to attain its political goal. For long years, the authorities decline from creating conditions to change the political climate.

Moreover, through the use of administrative levers, the authorities cause problems for those attending the sanctioned opposition rallies, dismiss dissenters, and put them under administrative arrest. Through restricting this right completely, the authorities pursue an aim to isolate the opposition, though temporarily, from the society. However, attacks and prohibitions by the authorities give rise to a growth of protest sentiment under the existing social and psychological situation. One must bear in mind that artificial obstacles for staging rallies, causing short-term embarrassment notwithstanding, will not end in great losses nevertheless. It must be conceded that large-scale social tension and dissatisfaction in society tend to grow and so does the propensity for protests. However, mass protest actions that would have been arranged by discontented groups without opposition"s involvement do not hit the eye. Languid attempts of protests being observed notwithstanding, they are systemless. It is important for the authorities to ease tensions, ensure fundamental rights and freedoms, and thus change the social situation for the better.

Finally, protest rallies currently remain the only legal ground creating the climate of peace public and political struggle. In spite of the fact that the opposition, temporarily though, is in no position to enjoy the right to the freedom of assemblies, it may promote its propaganda opportunities to force the authorities to be more attentive to social problems and remove them.