The new law "On political parties": not progress, but regress

Last week, another 10 parties submitted proposals to the Milli Majlis on a new law "On Political Parties": the “Yeni Azerbaijan” Party, the People’s Party of Azerbaijan (Azərbaycan Xalq Partiyası), the Citizens and Development Party (Vətəndaş və İnkişaf Partiyası), the White Party (Ağ Partiya), the National Revival Movement Party (Milli Dirçəliş Hərəsı Partiyası ), Modern Musavat Party (Müasir Müsavat Partiyası), New Time Party (Yeni Zaman Partiyası), Unity Party (Birlik Partiyası), National Democratic Party of Azerbaijan (Azərbaycan Milli Demokrat Partiyası) and National Congress Party (Milli Konqres PartiyasI). Thus, the number of political parties that sent their proposals to the Milli Majlis reached 39.

Why is there a need for  a new  bill?   What will be the purpose of the new bill?

Bashir Suleymanli, head of the Civil Rights Institute, answers ASTNA questions on this topic.

* * *

Question: Preparations are underway to introduce amendments to the Law on Political Parties. Do you think there is a need for these changes?

Answer: This discussion has been going on for a long time. The current law "On Political Parties" was adopted in 1992. It was followed by a new Constitution, which was amended several times. The Electoral Code was adopted and changed several times. If to take into account the country's membership in international organizations, the obligations assumed, the conventions which it has joined, then there is a need for a new, more advanced and equal law on political parties. Also, political processes, the regional situation make it important to adopt a law that meets new challenges. True, since then the Law “On Political Parties” has been amended and supplemented several times. However, a new, progressive draft of the law could be prepared, which would revive the political processes, and call people  for  civil, legitimate, legal activity; but the existing law is not a progress, but regression. The law practically consists of the words "prohibit", "eliminate", "control".

Question: Was the current Law “On Political Parties” properly drafted? What are its disadvantages?

Answer: Naturally, the current law also met normal standards, but there are also some disadvantages. For example, missing - a clear approach in relation to funding; articles establishing the framework for the use of funds for the treatment of citizens, etc. On the other hand, the problem in Azerbaijan is not only the limited scope of the law or the existence of gaps. More often problems arise in law enforcement. If the law is not applied properly or selectively, then the meaning of

law is diminished. For example, with the current Electoral Code, very normal elections can be held. But we see that election commissions are formed under the control of the authorities, and all elections are held with massive violations. Therefore, usually, putting forward new legislative proposals, we try to prevent the authorities from violating by using gaps.

Question: What goals can arouse the desire to create a new law on political parties?

Answer: At the first glance at the project, the goal becomes obvious. Being followers of the totalitarian system of government, they do not want any force to be an independent entity. And it's not just about political parties.  The law adopted prior to this,  puts the activities of the media within the framework. For several years, there have been discussions about civil society. It seems that this law will also have more restrictive and isolating Articles.

Sometimes I try to understand the concerns of the authorities. However, in a globalizing world, more "progressive" approaches are replacing classical methods. For example, what law will they be able to regulate the appearance tomorrow of a person with great authority, living abroad for years and owning millions, joining some “killed” party and calling on all voters to “vote for any candidate”?! Or how will the activities of a person who acts without creating any party be framed?!

Question: Can the law "On political parties" completely disable the objectionable authorities of the party? Or can it further restrict the freedom of parties?

Answer: As already mentioned, the main thing here is to find out the intention. And, if it is to disable the alternative, using the opportunities provided by the laws, they will naturally be able to safely do it. This assertion is made possible by the articles included in the transitional provisions. The transitional provisions read:

30.1. A political party that received state registration before the entry into force of this Law, within 90 days from the date of entry into force of this Law, may change the number of its members to the number provided for in Article 6.1 of this Law (6.1. For state registration, a political party must have at least 10 000 members) and in accordance with Article 20.10 of this Law (20.10. A political party maintains a register of its members (indicating the name, surname, patronymic, as well as personal identification number, date of birth, registration address, local organization of the party in which it is registered ( if available), and indicating the contact phone number), draws up a register of its members and submits it to the body (structure) determined by the relevant executive authority.

This means that the parties registered so far must register at least 10,000 members within 90 days. Thus, the identity of 10,000 party members will be known to the executive branch, and they will be able to put pressure on them and their loved ones at any time.

Question: The provisions of the new bill are criticized and called absurd. What statements are absurd?

Answer: One of the absurdities is the increase in the number of members by 10 times, from 1,000 to 10,000 people. Another unnecessary and incomplete Article 4.9. It is written there:

"A political party does not have the right to speak on behalf of the whole people and address on behalf of the whole people." What does it mean? Why can't a party that requires at least 10,000 members speak for the people? How can a deputy who has received 3,000-5,000 votes in Azerbaijan speak on behalf of the people, while a party with 10,000 members cannot?!

Another absurdity - Article 4.10 says: "Political parties must not abuse their rights." How will they find out? Will they warn the parties that several times wanted to picket, rally, declaring that they are abusing their right?!

The next absurdity is the requirement of permanent residence in the country for 20 years. Article 5.1 says: “A political party is established by at least 200 citizens (founders) of the Republic of Azerbaijan who have permanently resided in the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan for the past 20 years and are fully capable.”

200 founders is normal, for example, in Georgia their number is 300. But what does permanent residence for the last 20 years mean ?! What criteria are included here? Does it include education, mandatory business trips, medical trips and so on?! These questions remain open and future abuse is a concern.

This requirement of permanent residence for 20 years is not limited. Article 15.5 states: “Only a party member who has permanently resided in the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan for the past 20 years can be represented in the leadership of the executive body of a political party.” Article 16.5 of the proposed draft states: “The chairman and deputy chairmen of a political party can only be elected from among the members of the party who have permanently resided in the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan for the past 20 years. The chairman and deputy chairmen may be represented in the executive body and advisory bodies of the political party, including in their leadership.”

Article 9.3.4 of the law, which is the reason for deregistration of the party, caused the greatest dissatisfaction and criticism. It is noted that the registration of a political party may be canceled if it "does not take part in the elections of deputies of the Milli Majlis of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan or municipal elections 2 times in a row (in the form of direct participation of a registered candidate in the elections)".

These articles may be normal for countries where the courts are independent, fundamental freedoms are provided, free media is strong and an independent civil society is strong. But in the Azerbaijani reality, this is very dangerous and may cause the disappearance of political parties in the future.

Question: What should be in the new law? How should the law be drafted to protect the interests of all parties?

Answer: Azerbaijan, being a member of the Council of Europe, has undertaken obligations to improve the legislative framework. Therefore, when developing draft laws, the opinion of the Venice Commission should be taken into account. On the other hand, the OSCE/ODIHR has also made various proposals in previous years. Also, at different times, proposals, theses of independent political parties and civil society structures of the country were heard. On the other hand, if Azerbaijan is interested in cooperation with the European Union, then it should be not only in the energy sector. There is also a need to bring the legal framework in line with international standards.

Also, the government should be interested in the development of political relations in a civilized way, in the emergence of independent and healthy players. This is required by the interests of the state. For example, during the 44-day Patriotic War, only independent representatives of civil society and representatives of the media became subjects capable of convincing international organizations. The government also saw this very clearly. GONGO (Government-Organized (or Operated) Non-Governmental Organization), which were artificially bred for many years, turned out to be unsuitable for anything. So it will be in the future.

Political parties are in the same state. What are formally, artificially created political parties good for?! Let us assume that they will be given representation in parliament as opposition. What will it give?!

Looking at the new bill, it seems that the spirit of the law is only aimed at limiting and isolating. Whereas, the law should be in the spirit of regulating the system of relations, clearly defining rights and obligations. Equal conditions must be created for all parties.

I believe that in connection with financial issues, more new approaches are needed. For example, Georgia writes in the law on political parties that political parties can give out cheap gifts for a total amount of not more than 5,000 lari in connection with festive celebrations. But we do not have such an approach. Also, this law establishes financial restrictions not only for political parties, but also for persons wishing to participate in elections. The law states: "The restrictions established in this section in relation to a party also apply to persons who have declared their intention to participate in elections and use appropriate financial and other material resources to achieve this goal." However, this is not provided for in our bill. For example, if I announce my candidacy, I must reckon with this law in connection with finances. Otherwise, it will be unfair, especially since, by committing an abuse, I do not bear any responsibility.

One prohibitive Article in the law of Georgia on political parties caught my attention. The law says: “A party cannot transfer money, gifts and other tangible or intangible assets (with the exception of low-cost election campaign materials - T-shirts, baseball caps, flags and other similar items) to a citizen of Georgia directly, with the help of a candidate, party representative or any other faces; or sell or supply goods or services at a discount or on preferential terms; either purchase goods or services at a price higher than the market price, or provide or distribute goods or services free of charge.

Provide or promise (except as otherwise provided by this Law) or demand from citizens of Georgia money, securities, tangible or intangible values ​​or services (including entering into fictitious employment or other relationships).

As already mentioned, if the goal is good, it will be possible to develop a progressive bill with the participation of the main political players, as well as taking into account the opinion of the Venice Commission. My position is that the authorities should make this law more liberal so that people in political processes strive for more legitimate and civilized ways. If they are interested in the participation of parties in elections, then this law should be simpler so that people can form parties and participate in elections. Violations in the electoral process must stop. Today, blocking, bans can have a “positive” effect. But in the future, we may see the opposite.