Crisis and radicalism

***

-What lessons can power and society learn from the rally of the National Council and the Popular Front Party on October 19?

- Repressions of the authorities on the eve of the rally and during the last rally showed that under no circumstances are they interested in freedom of assembly of citizens, in the realization of political freedoms. It is felt that at present the Azerbaijani authorities are in a rather tense state. The main reason for this is the existing socio-economic discontent. That is, the socio-economic crisis that began after 2014-2015, the growth of unemployment along with this, bureaucratic arbitrariness, and the lack of a normal, clear strategic plan in this regard, increase social discontent. Instead of carrying out political reforms or protecting socio-economic rights, preference is given to violence and repressive measures. Attitude to this action proceeded precisely from this alignment. They tried to show that any kind of discontent, any form of expression of discontent by citizens would be suppressed by force. The talk is not about what happened on October 19. Indeed, before the action, activists were arrested under various pretexts, and the initiation of criminal cases against them is an indicator of this. This is an open message of the public especially to the international community and to international organizations, which Azerbaijan joined, and which are closely monitoring Azerbaijan.  The message that there is not  desire in the country, no will to make political changes, although there is discontent, but it has not yet reached maximum, better and at a higher level of organized state, necessary for deeply thought out expression, capable of achieving the consolidation of society to solve its problems. As for the lesson of various organizations, political groups, which they can learn, it consists in forming a common interest in society in this problem. After that, what I believe in, and the authorities will take a step back. They will be forced to seek to solve the problems of citizens and overcome the crisis.

- Why did not the authorities give the opportunity to hold rallies? What are they afraid of?

- It seems that the undesirability of this type of action for authoritarian regimes is because these periodically held actions seem to break the atmosphere of fear created by the authorities.  Authoritarian regimes are interested in being feared even at the local level, at least on a national scale. Try to solve everything through the police. Relying specifically on the strength of the police, power appears before citizens in this form. Therefore, the increase in the number of this type of shares is not in the interests of the authorities. They do not have the political will to go for reforms that would be welcomed by society and make a difference. They cannot refuse these repressive methods. It indicates that the authorities are more inclined not to reform, but to repression.

- The authorities made very serious efforts to prevent the last rally. The transport, communications, and the Internet were limited. Much more police forces were mobilized than in previous rallies. Police violence reigned against the rally participants.

- Currently, the authorities are experiencing some uncertainty. That is, they understand the discontent of citizens of the country, as well as the serious concern of many groups of socio-economic problems. At the same time, they cannot do anything. Naturally, there is an opportunity for their solution, but for this, there must be a political will, which does not exist. In view of the lack of political will, it is felt that they cannot go for reform, and on the other hand, dissatisfaction is growing. However, there is one more uncertainty - on what scale can this tension and discontent manifest itself. Therefore, they are preparing for the protests so seriously. They try as much as possible so that as few citizens as possible and the broad masses are informed about the rally, so that the number of participants is small, so that people do not join the rally - in short, there would be no multiplicity and mass character. In this regard, they use administrative methods such as restricting transport, the Internet, and mobile operators, thus preventing the action.

- There is an opinion that this is a game within power groups. That is, the increase in the number of violent demonstrators does not work at all to improve the image of the authorities. Someone, intentionally doing this, is trying to put the authorities in a bad position. The president at the last meeting hinted at a disagreement within the government. How logical is this?

- I do not think that the groups within the government are political in nature. I categorically do not believe that there are any political groups inside the government. In the world of this kind of power is characterized as a cleptocratic regime. That is, a board formed based on corruption, financial and economic interests - this is the motivation. In this process, everyone is trying to capitalize on it. All officials:  high-ranking, in a political post, a middle-ranking official. Everyone in one form or another is trying to capitalize on his post in order to create his own business and expand his economic opportunities. In this context, competition is possible between some groups; the emergence of new groups based on economic interests. Speaking of these economic, corporate interests, some kind of grouping, preference is created. This does not carry any political character; the political intention is not traced here, since everyone in power links their existence and presence with the ruling political family. Outside of this, no one sees his political existence. Groups differing in political thinking and interests are not observed. Therefore, it would be correct to imagine this not as a provocation of some group, but as a natural reaction arising from the situation in which the authorities are located, from the existing situation.

The reaction is of two kinds. Either they implement a mitigation policy - they are reforming, or they continue repression. Repressions in Azerbaijan are taking place not only now; they have been going on for years. Moreover, this is not the first such action. Every year, two times light a green light for any action. Then, as far as possible on the outskirts of the city. There such actions can occur with interference, certain problems and restrictions. They are worried that suddenly people will be able to hold a rally in the city center and unite around opposition parties. This is their natural reaction arising from concern. This reaction should not be accepted as a reaction of some kind of grouping, but as a single, monolithic reaction of the authorities.

- This time not only activists were beaten up, but also representatives of the opposition, who have great authority. For example, Ali Karimli was detained, received blows to the head. They broke Tofig Yagublu’s rib. Rufat Safarov was tortured. What did the authorities want to tell these to the public and the world?

- Violence, atrocity against well-known socio-political activists is an indicator of the tension that exists between political decision-makers within the ruling team.  Which is the result of the syndrome of uncertainty that I mentioned. As much as possible they try to stifle all protest initiatives at the root, therefore they do not shun atrocities, violence and other methods. The goal is unequivocally that it is to stifle all protests, and by committing violence, they try to show that if someone protests in the future, then the fate of the victims of violence awaits them. How would they create such a model, according to which everyone can be subjected to such violence.

- If we summarize everything that happened, then what conclusion can we come to? What is the situation moving to and how can this be prevented?

- I do not believe that such a rude, harsh and violent attitude to the rally, the actions of the National Council, can stop the social and economic recovery in the country. For some period, this may have an effect. However, in the presence of very serious socio-economic factors, which, regardless of the presence or absence of the National Council or other political groups, will lead to an explosion of existing discontent. It would be better if the authorities adhered to a policy of easing, taking measures to correct the socio-economic situation and eliminate political tensions. That would be the best. If the authorities do not agree to this, then tension will increase, Azerbaijan will become a target for international criticism, and pressure will increase. The most troubling question for me now is the possibility of politically radical moods, unlike those people who show their protest peacefully. That is, if they do not listen to those forces that want to hold peaceful actions, put forward proposals, seek to change the policy of the government and turn it to face more citizens, then the place of these forces will be taken by more radical, more characteristic (original, independent) forces. It must be agreed that, in spite of all these repressions, there have not yet been any radical actions in Azerbaijan. There are no such forces inside the country. Maybe there is, but have not intensified. However, the forces that are in sight, are not so. That is, by destroying such political forces, the authorities create problems for themselves for the future. I am concerned that if these processes, this tension, this crisis drag on for a long time, then political relations can be directed in a different direction, creating radical sentiments. I am worried just about this.