American analyst: pressure on OSCE, NDI questions the legitimacy of the elections

Michael Tkacik, an American academic and analyst on democracy and international affairs, urges that pressure on international vote monitors in Azerbaijan ahead of the presidential elections "calls into question the legitimacy of the elections."

In an interview with TURAN's Washington DC correspondent, a Texas-based Professor of Government, and Director of the School of Honors at the Stephen F. Austin State University, described the possible outcomes of growing pressure against the OSCE and NDI in Azerbaijan.

These organizations, he said, play a key role in supporting human rights, democracy, and in building civil society.

OSCE arose out of the Helsinki process, which recognized that human rights are more than an internal affair. Without this understanding of universal human rights, the state is free to abuse its citizens without limit, he reminds.

"Many argue that the OSCE was important in building the first free institutions in the Soviet Union, though that assertion is certainly subject to debate. What is not subject to debate is that the OSCE embraces and encourages universal rights for humans. To reject the OSCE is to reject these values: NDI is more specifically about promoting free and fair elections. To reject the NDI is to reject democracy. To reject both of these organizations six months before major elections raises a question as to the legitimacy of these elections," he emphasized.

Beyond this, he added, the move raises other question: If government is afraid of the OSCE and NDI, which have no enforcement powers, what is left?

"Why would a government be so fearful of transparency unless it has something to hide? It opens the door not just to unfair elections, but to even greater corruption than currently exists," he added.

Officials in Baku assuce NDI of "distributing grants without a special registration", while they have also proposed downgrading the mandate of the OSCE, which has criticised the democratic credential of ballots in the country since it opened its offices in 2000.

Asked if there is any reason to consider the western institutions "a threat" to the government of the countries where they are operating, Mr. Tkacik said "this approach follows the model set forth by President Putin in Russia".

"Authoritarians in the FSU (Former Soviet Union) fear independent sources of power in society. IGOs (such as the OSCE) and NGOs (such as NDI) are therefore targeted", he explained. "Putin likes to frame this in terms of "Western dominated institutions attempting to impose their will on Russia." But in reality this is a function of organizations motivated primarily by the centrality of democracy, liberty, and human rights. If this is Western domination, it is so only in the sense that post-Enlightenment liberalism is equated with "Western interests." It is more accurate and more revealing to look at Putin's methods, which are drawn from his KGB background and thus the anti-liberal philosophy of the Soviet Union."

In this regard, the analyst added, Putin is little different from Brezhnev: "He simply wears better suits. And authoritarianism dressed in a different suit is still authoritarianism. Putin sets the standards and many sympathetic rulers in states that were once part of the Soviet Union follow the example. So similar policies are adopted across Central Asia, in Belorussia, and, now it appears in Azerbaijan as well."

For Tkacik, organizations such as the OSCE and NDI "are only threats to a state if that state sees the goals of those organizations - expanding post-Enlightenment liberalism - as a threat to the state".

"Organizations that advocate for openness, democracy, human rights, and the like, are only threatening if those goals themselves are threatening. A state that attacks these organizations is not afraid of the organizations, which after all have little real power. Rather, the state is afraid of the goals of these organizations and the result of a population that embraces those goals," he added.

Baku's accusations against the western institutions were also followed by proposal in the Parliament to limit options for the foreign aid for local NGOs, like neighboring Russia did just recently...

For Prof Tkacik, this represents the slow strangulation of NGOs and the benefits they bring to local populations. Most importantly, he said, NGOs bring a level of transparency that discourages illegal and/or improper activities by the state.

"Of course, the state can and does ignore NGO objections, but these objections serve to limit the scope, breadth, and tenor of illicit state activity. Without the NGOs, transparency is reduced and one more limit on government, on more protection for normal people, is removed. These organizations play an important role in limiting government action in states where the local institutions that should achieve this goal are insufficiently developed," he underscored.

Banning funding is a more precise and subtle approach, but the outcome is the same - the ultimate removal of a limit on government activity and therefore a removal of protections for the population, he said. Banning funding is the preferred method by government because it is less obvious, but with upcoming elections the government may not have the patience for this method.

Speaking about the situation with the media in Azerbaijan, the analyst said, obviously, attacks on journalists "negatively impact Azerbaijan's image in the West."

There are, however, a wide range of states with which Azerbaijan can trade and interact - it does not have to "face" west. From China to Central Asia to Russia to the Middle East, there are legions of states that deny basic rights to their citizenry and ignore the way other states treat their citizens. "Azerbaijan is making itself a welcome home among these states," he emphasized.

Some view the West as in retreat and this "new authoritarianism" as ascendant. Perhaps this is so (for the moment), but one must ask in which group one prefers to belong. Does a state aspire to the post-Enlightenment values of liberty and the sanctity of the individual, or does it aspire so some other philosophical goal - the collective, the state, nationalism, or kleptocracy masquerading as one of these other forms?

"Human rights are in retreat throughout the world. That retreat is hastened without a free press, NGOs, rule of law, independent institutions, and so on," he said.

There is today an alternative model for governance and development, namely authoritarian capitalism. This model is viewed as having worked well, especially in Asia. So many states, including Azerbaijan, believe they can achieve economic growth but without the freedoms granted by Western states. For Tkacik, "at least two things are problematic about this analysis."

First, he explained, some Asian states have very large labor pools that have allowed for extended economic growth. Azerbaijan does not have this comparative advantage (though oil could mimic the effect for some time).

Second, those states that have maintained economic growth past the phase of cheap labor have done so by creating independent institutions. Azerbaijan's strategy seems to be to retard the development of independent institutions.

"So if Azerbaijan is attempting to mimic the authoritarian capitalism model, it is doing so in a flawed sense," he concluded.