How long will tense relations between the authorities and the opposition last?

After the event dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the New Azerbaijan Party  (YAP) (Yeni Azərbaycan Partiyası), relations between the authorities and the opposition escalated again. The opposition parties invited to the YAP event held on November 21 were discriminated against. Although the opposition parties involved in the government's imitation of "dialogue" have been invited, the other opposition parties were not even invited. In the course of public discussions it seemed that government did not want to see real opposition at its anniversary event.

In democratic states, relations between the government and the opposition are protected by a legal system regulated by laws. At the same time, political relations in society also develop mainly within these frameworks. In any case, elections and voters determine the power and opposition in the country. In non-democratic states, there are no clear, stable mechanisms that regulate political relations.

What is the situation in this direction in our country, who benefits from the tension between the authorities and the opposition, how long will this tension last? These questions have not lost their relevance for many years.

From the very beginning of Azerbaijan's independence to the present day, relations between the government and the opposition have always been tense. There has never been any understanding, trust or cooperation between the parties. There were harsh accusations against each other, hatred and persecution were expressed. To be convinced of this, a cursory glance at our modern political history will suffice.

First of all, the attitude towards the opposition of the first President of Azerbaijan Ayaz Mutalibov was extremely negative. Mutalibov wanted to eliminate them, but the turbulent political processes of that time deprived him of such an opportunity. But the opposition was also irreconcilable to Mutalibov. At the first opportunity, the opposition succeeded in dismissing him.

The same fate befell Abulfaz Elchibey, who was elected the country's second president after Mutalibov's resignation. He was sharply criticized and attacked by the opposition, and the rebellion put an end to his power. Elchibey's government could not establish normal relations with the opposition. Etibar Mammadov, chairman of the National Independence Party (NIP), the main opposition to the PFA government, was directly involved in the rebellion. And the YAP provided political support for the military uprising.

Relations between the third president of Azerbaijan, Heydar Aliyev, and the opposition were also not smooth. Mutual accusations, condemnations and contradictions continued during Aliyev's 10-year rule. The freedoms that existed in the country were gradually strangled, and the possibility of changing power through elections was significantly reduced. Relations between the government and the opposition took on an irreconcilable character.

During the 19-year rule of Ilham Aliyev, the tactics of completely ousting the real opposition from the political system was chosen. Freedoms were significantly restricted, persecution for opposition political activities intensified, and a very serious problem of political prisoners arose in the country. The possibility of a change of power through elections was completely ruled out.

The contradictory political relations established 30 years ago continue to escalate. The irreconcilable attitude of the parties to each other, sharp remarks and criticism further intensified mutual hatred. Although discontent has increased, political activity in society has significantly weakened, the tendency to protest has decreased, people have moved from the role of participants in the process to the role of observers. A complex, contradictory and negative political situation has developed in the country.

After analyzing the political situation in the country, let's try to figure out who benefits from this tension. Let us theoretically divide the parties that influence political relations in society into power, opposition and neutral. This classification is necessary only to find out who benefits from the real political situation.

These conditions do not create serious obstacles for the government to carry out its domestic and foreign policy. On the contrary, management and government have become even more simplified. It received complete control over property, finance, economy, law. And it is not at all interested in changing this situation.

The overwhelming majority, who conditionally remain neutral or are not interested in political processes, have also adapted to the current conditions. Although they sometimes express dissatisfaction on social grounds, they are not interested in protests not only for the sake of political change, but also for a social orientation.

Here you can list a lot of objective and subjective reasons. However, our goal is not to analyze this, but simply to reflect the existing reality.

The opposition suffers the most from tense relations between the authorities and the opposition. For attempts to organize protests, the opposition is subjected to harassment, beatings, insults, humiliation and arrests. The opposition is subjected to monstrous discrimination.

In order to maintain this environment, the government is unwilling to soften its policy towards the opposition. It is invariably looking for a pretext to maintain tension in relations with the opposition. It initially creates such conditions that the opposition voluntarily refused any cooperation with it. Up to the fact that she perceived the refusal to cooperate with the authorities as her own achievement.

Without coercion, the government is neither political reform nor democratization.

The likelihood that the opposition will be able to force the authorities to do this with the help of traditional strategies and tactics is illusory. Moreover, one cannot expect a positive result from a process in which “neutrals” do not participate.

Finally, let's take a superficial analysis of how long these tense relations between the government and the opposition will last. As already mentioned, in democratic states, voters determine power and opposition. The party that received the most votes in the elections becomes the government, and the rest of the participants, of their own free will, either support the government or become the opposition. Any newly created institution that calls itself opposition ultimately determines its real place in society through elections. Changes are made through elections.

In our country, the institution of elections has completely failed. According to the latest statistics, there are 6.4 million active voters in the country. Unfortunately, it is more logical to call them "voters" rather than "voters". Because it is inappropriate to call people who are deprived of the right to vote "voters". The elections of recent years have shown that in the country there is only a very wide "freedom" of voting, and not "choice".

In a society where the institution of elections is disabled, the plane of the struggle for power is closed. To change the existing status quo, i.e. to change power, you need to have resources that exceed its resources. The opposition does not have such an opportunity. Change can only happen if there is a large-scale popular movement in which "neutrals" actively participate. At the present time, there are no signs of a society's inclination towards a big movement.

In the country, the battlefield for the right to be called the opposition is very wide. The authorities not only hinder this struggle, but artificially enhance and stimulate this competition. Unfortunately, all the opposition, without exception, actively participate in this process. Much to the delight of the authorities, the number of applicants in the opposition camp is large, and these applicants revise, discredit and slander each other.

Those who create conflict in the opposition camp do not face the threat of being fired, beaten or arrested. And the more competition in this direction intensifies, the easier it is for the authorities to breathe.

Finally, in countries that are not free, the opposition institution most susceptible to repression by the government theoretically acquires the mandate of a real opposition. However, this mandate is not enough to guide political change in the country. Social groups of various categories, political and public institutions in society are trying to take advantage of the contradictions between the institution that has this mandate and the authorities. Normal relations between the government and the opposition can be established after free and fair elections are held in the country.