Conditions for pre-election campaigning of nominees are discriminatory

***

- Khalid bey, advertising prices for agitation campaign on the public television for nominees in Azerbaijan have been announced. What do think, do these pieces go along with advertising market of Azerbaijan? Are prices available for nominees?

- To answer this answer clearly, it is essential to study the advertising market, prices and other segments of the country. According to official data, total advertising market of Azerbaijan in 2018 made up 7 million 747,200 manats. The latest data of the State Statistics Committee embrace 2018 figures. No 2019 data have been presented. Note that official advertising price reports testify to the fact that citizens of Azerbaijan are in no position to pay for it.

Besides, there is an approach to the solution of the issue in the light of the cost of national market of media advertisement. For example, in 2018 total market cost of all mass media means of Azerbaijan – press, broadcasting, Internet-mass media made up just 7, 5 million manats.  Note that the same year TV-advertisement revenues made up above 6 million manats. It has to be kept in mind that in 2017 figures stood lower. In the reviewed year the total advertising budget of country’s mass media made up 4,6 million, on some TV-channels – approx. 3 million.  Ordinary values seem to be unthinkable in the light of this information. Just imagine that annual advertising revenues of the country’ television channel is about 3-4 million manats, and 3-4-daily cost of the pre-election political advertisement is equal to the annual advertising budget of mass media.

All things considered, it is impossible to logically and impartially estimate prices specified for electoral campaign on TV. And again, these prices are inconsistent with CE standards Azerbaijan is a member to. In 1999, the CE Cabinet of Ministers adopted a declaration on the role of mass media at the elections. The declaration stipulates that CE member-states are bound to ensure an equal price access for all nominees. It may be said that paid airfare is meant for representatives of the ruling Party only with its great financial assets.

- An opinion is around that the said prices have been thought up to draw nominees away TV-channels. In other words, they have to decline from paid campaigning. What do you think? Why have these tariffs been established?

- Note that the advertising market in normal countries is approx. 1% of GDP. In other words, if a country’s GDP is 100 billion manats, a market value of advertisement must constitute not less than 600-700 million manats. Indices of this sort are well known in Azerbaijan: advertising revenues are 0,008%, not 1% of GDP! Prices could have been different if there would function a normal advertising market. However, when adjusted for current advertising market indices, it is impossible to find another cause but undesirability of critical statements on a TV-screen.

One should not be surprised at high prices on the public television. They have always done in that manner. The question is that there are international conventions in the public broadcasting adopted by our country to specify appropriate principles and standards. 

One must bear in mind that a public broadcaster in Azerbaijan is far from the principles and standards cited above. Suffice it to say that the public television is under state control and dependent financially. In spite of the fact that the question is about the so-called public broadcaster, it’d be naïve to hope on different advertising policy in the run-up to the parliamentary elections.

The public television declared that above 60 election constituencies would have free air time for the registered parties (i.e. Yeni Azerbaijan Party). Others should pay 65 manats per second. This circumstance violates the equality of nominees under the majority system. If voters fail to be proposed individually and independently, one voter comes forward, another pays, third remains uninvolved. However, all nominees must have free air time, ain’t that a fact? Ain’t that discrimination?

Particular emphasis needs to be placed on the legislation that obliged not only public broadcasting companies but all state-financed mass media as well to provide free of charge, to be exact, state-paid services for campaigning. Remark though that the creation of such an opportunity is not a responsibility of public broadcaster only. Note that a larger TV-media company AzTV is funded through the state budget. It is not surprising that state media receive tens of millions from the state budget. That’s why they are obligated to provide free air time to all election participants. Unfortunately, this demand has long been ignored and regulators decline from interfering with the situation.

Another issue is the provision of free of charge air time to any nominee. Account has to be taken of the fact that regulating clauses of the election legislation are faulty and discriminatory. This opportunity is to be given to all nominees. The point is that the declaration on media’ role in the CE Election Commission-1999 provides for a certain discretion to the CE member-countries in this matter. 

It ought to be noted that the CE lays an emphasis on the fact that if the legislation provides for free air time, appropriate regulations must be fair, non-discriminatory and based on objective and strict criteria. As for our practice, provision of political groups and organizations with a small number of nominees with free air time is not unfair approach nor discrimination against nominees. 

- After opportunities for nominees were announced, many of them placed their statements in social networks as saying that it was more profitable to use advertisement services on Facebook and YouTube.  In other words, even if their decision is goal-oriented, it does not bar from pursuing pre-election campaign and electioneering for nominees. In other words, even if their decision is goal-oriented, it has the opposite effect. What do you think, will social networks fully replace TV-propaganda?

- First of all, this is expression of the fact that the epoch of television alternatives is dead and gone. Scores of countries are experienced in more effective use of Internet in the course of electoral processes. Note that the option of propaganda campaign through the use of social networks has always been decisive in countries, from the United States to America. For this reason, it is natural for us to appeal to Internet.

This notwithstanding, importance of broadcasting mass media is not depreciated by Internet. One cannot forget that broadcasting mass media and TV-radio are instrumental as well. To my thinking, this instrument tends to excel Internet by its effectiveness in some countries, including Azerbaijan. Note that broadcasting mass media are particularly instrumental in regions of Azerbaijan.

- Most mass media and TV-channels declined from participating in this campaign, even private mass media.  Why do media agents decline from opportunity to earn money?

- It should be noted that important political events, including elections, media’s approach and policy, are effective instrument for assessment of mass media freedom in the country. As independent business subject, mass media have to take active part in the election marathon and provide wide opportunities to all actors. It matters most for mass media and broader audience due to more precise, unbiased and objective coverage of election varieties.

However, the opposite is true: government-backed mass media are pleased to be silent and keep in the background. Granting this, Internet-mass media is the sole way to be used by nominees for deputy in the course of electoral campaign as a barometer of mass media freedom. Facts cited above are illustrative of serious problems in mass media freedom in Azerbaijan. This is an eloquent testimony to the fact that the government is a real media owner except for Internet-mass media. One must bear in mind that free mass media live at the expense of advertising revenues: if mass media free, why should they decline from advertising revenues?

- Some mass media are engaged in propagandizing separate nominees from the very start of the campaign. Why aren’t they regulated?

- It is a matter of mass media freedom and compliance with the present legislation. Account has to be taken of the fact that elections processes are to be independent and act effectively. Free professional mass media must pay equivalent treatment to all nominees. Note that mass media means of Azerbaijan are under perpetual control of the authorities and top officials. It is not astonishing that country’s media incessantly glorify the good and the great. 

It must be borne in mind that in cases like that the legislation is meant to restrict manifestations of that nature in line with pre-election campaigning. However, these requirements are not complied with. This is explained as being due to the fact that structures in charge of legislative execution are also controlled by the government and disinterested in process regulation. Note that laws in charge of the process provide for online mass media. As mentioned previously, these laws are out of whack that leads to unsound situationи.

-How are mass media going to act in terms of normal re-election campaign? I mean free of charge and paid advertisement. How is this process meant to be covered in mass media?

-  It should be noted that serious responsibility rests on mass media to ensure free and fair elections. All things considered, free and fair elections go through delivering equal opportunities and views and concepts of nominees. 

A closer look at the current situation reveals that there no grounds to believe in such an opportunity. As a matter of fact, in the course of elections the government must step aside and create favorable conditions for free activity of mass media. 

Added to this can be that mass media must provide fair field and no favor, non-discriminated access for all nominees and candidates from political parties, as well as their supporters for outreach efforts. However, current mass media structure disallows this due to state control. There is no point in leaning on mass media for support: they are sponsored by the government, not for advertising revenues; mass media cannot create opportunities for political heavyweights, public figures, political parties and groups taking a critical look at the present authorities.