Expert: The language of the ODIHR report differs from previous reports

Several days remain to the presidential elections in Azerbaijan. Recently, the Interim Report of the Observation Mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) related to the elections was distributed. Turan interviewed Akif Gurbanov, a former member of the Central Election Commission, an election expert, head of the Institute for Democratic Initiatives, on the pre-election situation and the Interim Report.

- Akif bey, the Interim Report on Elections of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has been published. How do you assess this document?

- Despite all the difficulties, the OSCE participates in this process. The organization prepared and distributed the Interim Report. The mere fact that the relevant process is reacting to the current process deserves a positive assessment. At the same time, problems in one form or another are reflected in the Report. However, when considering this OSCE document in the context of international standards, Azerbaijan's commitments and previous approaches of this structure, the current approaches look very problematic. This is also related to the language problem, which in fact has become a very important tool in international politics. That is, with the rhetoric of international organizations.

- What language was most used in the document prepared by them, and how adequately does this language apply to the ongoing processes?

- Unfortunately, as can be seen from the report of the OSCE Mission to Needs Assessment, that is, from the first Report, this language, starting from the previous similar documents, begins with a different rhetoric. Contrary to expectations, the language of the Interim Report, like the language of the OSCE Mission's needs assessment report, is different from previous standards. There is a very important point here. Especially, we are talking about words used in English. That is, the possibilities of the English language are so vast that sometimes the use of even one specific word can change the entire meaning of the sentence.

- And in this case we see that the rhetoric used by the OSCE has changed. What are these changes?

- Concerning the principles of formation and management of the lower election level of the Central Election Commission and other election commissions, the OSCE adhered to the traditionally established position that has not changed since 2005. In other words, from this position it was openly stated that in Azerbaijan the authorities de-facto control all election commissions, and this control seriously and significantly affects both the implementation of decisions and the process. Considering the issue in another context, one can note that in previous OSCE recommendations, in the conclusions of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, in the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights adopted in connection with the elections held in Azerbaijan, along with private measures (demands) general measures directly related to the election legislation of Azerbaijan.

In the presence of such requirements concerning the electoral legislation of Azerbaijan, the very fact of the name of the current Electoral Code is perfect, comprehensive, in fact creates an absolutely contradictory impression. And it causes quite fair criticism from the local community or political parties. A look at the situation in a different format shows that those recommendations and decisions contained a special requirement for the issue of making complaints and, in general, for appeals procedures. It also called for an investigation of the claims of the parties by an objective and impartial structure for the purpose of ensuring justice. The situation with the consideration of these complaints was considered unacceptable and was criticized. However, in the current Report on all this, no position is expressed. That is, to these moments there is nothing to do. The provisions of this Electoral Code are simply reflected in this matter, and this is in contrast to previous approaches. I do not mean only a biased assessment of the current political situation. Perhaps, this may be considered a subjective opinion, but, in our opinion, the situation with political freedoms and the media is much more tense. However, in their eyes, it may seem different. Especially I want to emphasize that I listed some of the things that the OSCE has so far paid special attention to in its previous reports, and which have not changed over the years. However, in the current report, the language used in the provisions for these things is very slippery and is a style that enables the government to manipulate them in its favor.

- You call the language of the Interim report "slippery". That is, the report is made in soft colors. What do you think, what is the reason for this?

- It is difficult to say unequivocally what this is connected with. My personal opinion is that, in fact, one of the main reasons for declaring early elections is the authorities' desire to hold them without a headache. In such a situation, the presence of the OSCE, at least because of the loss of time, that is, its lack, would be technically impossible. In addition, the OSCE has severely reacted to the way the authorities approached the 2015 elections, arguing that this is harsh in that it will not be able to observe the elections in accordance with the requirements of professionalism and standards. In other words, contrary to our expectations, this year the OSCE did not take this position and it is possible, it considered the issue in the context of participation. And now the question arises, why, as soon as the information of the Evaluation Mission was made public, the OSCE immediately decided on the composition of the composition, and very soon she announced how many employees needed her Central Office? The question is, could you wait for the government's response to the Evaluation Mission Report? So, it turns out that the OSCE was aware that in any case, the government wants their arrival. It can be seen from the conspicuous moments that the OSCE considers participation to be compulsory, and according to the information I have received, it tosses part of the participants of many other missions here. Will the OSCE observe professionalism and will the level of preparation and understanding of the current situation in the country be sufficient for the delegation arriving here? To be honest, I doubt it. On the other hand, at the press conference of the head of the OSCE, it was obvious that he was trying to avoid all questions, and even on the question related to the Needs Assessment Mission report, he replied: "I have not yet become acquainted with it." This was either an evasion of the answer, or a recognition that the incoming mission was really unaware of this report, which in itself looked like unprofessionalism. At the same time, it is felt from the questions asked by other experts at the meeting with different OSCE delegations that it is represented here by insufficiently qualified personnel. In fact, the ODIHR has a well-established practice. I think that in fact, many of the involved staff have little connection with this practice of the ODIHR and are mainly drawn from other observation missions.

In other words, if we summarize all this, we can conclude that, despite all the professionalism, the ODIHR is not a structure that takes political decisions. For this, the OSCE has its own structures. Much to our regret, it is noticeable that in this process the key role is played by those who make political decisions. In addition to the ODIHR, we also met with the delegation of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. The head of the delegation is the President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the Georgian deputy Georgy Tsereteli. And during the discussions with him, I realized that, given positive feedback from the OSCE, the government gives them new promises to resolve certain problems. That is, I came to the conclusion that the Azerbaijani government wants to get a new carte blanche. And this carte blanche looks like a message that the international community recognizes the legitimacy of presidential elections, in this case, some of their wishes and appeals will be fulfilled. Although the OSCE Election Observation Mission has been in the country for more than 3 weeks, the head of state accepted it after the publication of the initial report. In previous visits, the country's leadership accepted the mission on the very first days of its arrival and a corresponding message circulated to demonstrate the will for relatively positive elections. And now the mission was accepted after the publication of the report. It turns out that they assumed some obligations, and the Azerbaijani government expected that you publish the report, and if it suits us, we will adequately respond. Such a conclusion suggests itself. That is, all this raises questions: arrival, in spite of the fact that there was not enough time until the elections, a change of language, the occupation of the waiting government by the Azerbaijani government. Unfortunately, these conclusions, doubts, and questions reinforce suspicions that the process is probably based on a political agreement.

- After the report of the OSCE / ODIHR in connection with the presidential elections of 2013, the relations between this international structure and the government of Azerbaijan have cooled. In the parliamentary elections of 2015, we did not see this organization. But now, the possibility of monitoring this structure by the course of the early presidential elections, despite a limited time, as you said and noted by some experts, is questionable. Could it be that this organization, on the basis of some agreement, agreed to participate in the elections and to write its reports in this form?

- It is difficult to say directly that the ODIHR is a party to such negotiations and that such a special agreement takes place. The ODIHR performs more professional and technical tasks here. The OSCE leadership decides more on political issues than the ODIHR. And it takes decisions, mostly in political form. Compared with previous years, the attitude towards the ODIHR has now changed. After the events of 2013, during my stay in the CEC, I witnessed the very tough attitude of the Azerbaijani government towards the ODIHR. The tough attitude and the process, which continued in 2015, were in fact conditioned by the previous approach. At that time, the principled position of the person who headed the ODIHR was irritating to the Azerbaijani government. Now the ODIHR leadership has changed. But, as I have already mentioned, maybe changing the leadership of the structure creates a new basis for dialogue. However, in this respect, the OSCE leadership is more important than the leadership of the ODIHR. The leadership of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly is carried out by a deputy from Georgia. The Azerbaijani MP is represented in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly at the level of the vice-president. From another point of view, that is, in certain respects it seems that new promises have been made. In this case, as I have already noted, such an agreement seems possible. That is, the government of Azerbaijan basically emphasizes that it needs this. Naturally, he understands this. Perhaps the OSCE can also provide such a message. In fact, a change in language is connected with politics. We see that it has changed. We can not give up the opinion that these processes are to a certain extent directly related to politics.

- Very little time left to the elections. What are your observations? Is there an elective atmosphere?

- "In fact, the government knew that there would be no atmosphere of elections, and I believe that one of the reasons for the early elections, as I said, is the authorities' desire to hold them without a headache. The task was set: it is necessary to simply complete the process as a measure of summing up without any political campaign. But for the implementation of the electoral process, first, it is necessary that the pre-election atmosphere meet the commitments undertaken by Azerbaijan, the OSCE Copenhagen standards, which imply the creation of minimum conditions for holding free and fair elections. Here it is a question of granting in the media environment of equal opportunities to all parties, about ensuring political freedoms, freedom of expression. Unfortunately, neither political freedoms nor the media environment in Azerbaijan allow these standards to be observed even in minimum standards. Because not only in Baku, but also in the regions, conditions are not created for parties, political organizations to be able to appear on television, hold closed events, a congress, so that those who wish can take advantage of freedom of association and freedom of assembly. Free communication with citizens is possible only through virtual instruments. If to put independent TV companies aside,then Public Television, which must comply with the requirements of the Law on Public Broadcasting, on granting equal opportunities to all parties, the last appearance of opposition representativeson air took place, as I recall, in 2013 during the presidential election. And then they were given this opportunity involuntarily - at the request of the relevant provision of the Electoral Code. Since then and to this day, not only representatives of opposition structures, but even members of an independent civil society, media experts are not allowed into this television space. In this case, it is impossible to speak about any pluralism of views, ideas, and electoral competition. Naturally, such conditions forced the opposition to refuse to participate in the elections. On the other hand, looking atthe nominated and registered candidates, you clearly see that these 8 people are now imitating a marathon. But it is interesting that in their speeches on TV-debates there is a very clear position: either "Everything Ilham Aliyev does is all right. It's a bad thing that the basis of all these problems is the long-term activity of the opposition," or (now there is a new rhetoric) allegedly" There is a certain group of officials who betrayed Azerbaijan's material interests. And they emigrated abroad, and (as if) these emigrants served as some cause of Azerbaijan's problems, "or" There are no problems, they present this situation as a problem. "That is, if we summarize these approaches, it becomes clear that the candidates do not have their own platform, and they are not even embarrassed to openly support a candidate from the ruling party. In this case, it is impossible to speak about any real competition or any political campaign, they use air time only in favor of the ruling team.They propagand thesuccesses in the activities of this team, as well as criticism, and sometimes even insultreal opponents outside the air. As a matter of fact, now we see that the Public Television (ITV) specifically violates the requirements of the Electoral Code, and the Central Election Commission refers to thisloyally. I myself have seen this many times, it is clear that from the ITV studio they insult the leading opposition figures, in fact, Public Television is obliged to give such persons the right to respond. At the same time, the Central Election Commission must, following the requirements of the Electoral Code, interrupt the debate due to a clear violation of the requirements of Article 88 of the Election Code. And she demonstrates obvious connivance. In this case, it is impossible to talk about a real election campaign.

- In the parliamentary elections of 2015, the candidates were not provided with free airtime. One of the expectations was that during the elections this year, candidates, regardless of being pro-government or opposition will beprovided with free airtime. But the oppositesituation happened. Why do you think?

- This year,the cadidates have been provided withair time because the composition of candidates was known and appeared in the format desired by the authorities. In my opinion, if those who could be a real alternative and really represent the opposition could connec the elections, their candidacy would not have been registered, that is, they would not have been admitted to the electoral marathon, or, if they were registered, their right to broadcast time would have been violated in one form or another. The most anticipated was the refusal to register candidates. Because after the elections in 2013, it became clear from the attitude of the authorities that they are not only intolerant of opposition, and they even do not want to hear it.It is quite differnt thing when the authorities do not want to hear about opposition. This reluctance to hear and sharp criticism directed at the first person of power on the air during the live broadcast in 2013, naturally led them to the conclusion that such critics can no longer be broadcast.

Or, sounding such criticismon air in general creates in the public opinion undesirable for them moments. From this point of view, I assumed that there would be some issues with the arrival of the OSCE and, therefore, there would be no problems with the provision of air time, or registration difficulties would be created, and really real candidates would not appear on the air. In other words, under the current situation, they already know who is eligible for the elections and what should be said at least a maximum. It is not difficult to see that even compared with the rhetoric of those discussed in the first week, the topics themselves and the style of their discussion changed completely next week. In my opinion, these candidates can be divided into two categories. That is, they can be considered candidates from power commands. And at the right time, one of the candidates criticized a group of officials in the government. On the one hand, he played the role of supposedly oppositionist, and on the other hand, he, defending the interests of the team that he represented, allegedly exposed someone. After the first speeches, becoming the object of ridicule, causing criticism from public opinion, various rumors and discussions, they were forced to change the tune. Next week almost all the candidates began to speak againstthe opposition activists who are in exile. All this clearly shows who determines the agenda of these candidates.

- Some experts believe that Ilham Aliyev will certainly win this election, and just for this reason the authorities, demonstrating their will, will try to hold free and fair elections. But there are also opinions that the results of these elections will be record: the percentage of votes in favor of Ilham Aliyev should be higher than in previous elections. In other words, over 90% of the votes should be submitted for Ilham Aliyev. What do you think? What will be the result?

- I want to say unequivocally: the activity of voters can be shown lower xompared to the previous elections. But it is certain that the increase in the number of votes for Ilham Aliyev will be shown. That is, suppose that if earlier he received 2 million votes, this time will be 2.5 million. Perhaps, in the context of the general interest, this may be 1-2% less or more than in the previous elections.

But constantly growing proportion of the population supporting Ilham Aliyev will be shown. That is, the number of voters supporting him is growing. Most of all they will use this for their political PR for the next 7 years. For both internal and international public. On the other hand, when viewed through the prism of the current situation, normal logic shows that in essence, the authorities have solved the issue already in the first round. And there is no need for them to take special measures on the voting day, artificially change the results, interfere in the process. And thus, the authorities can serve as a good example for international organizations and observers. In fact, the international media and structures are also considering the situation in the context of how free expression of the will of the population in relation to the elected person is ensured. That is, did people really participate in the elections and voted? Or was there some interference in their voting? Impressions are created mainly on the basis of all this. The competitive environment, in general, is evaluated by professional professionals. But representatives of the public are more focused on the day of elections and pay attention to whether the will of the people is expressed or not. I have already mentioned, this is a necessity, in fact, normally logic requires doing this. However, unfortunately, as the experience of the past years has shown, it is likely that this time the elections will be held in the form more or less analogous to the previous one. Because when evaluating the management system from a different position, it becomes clear that they consider the other form to be dangerous. Or in another form they want and do not know how to hold elections. Even at the last municipal elections, we saw that the candidates were the faces acceptable to the authorities. The society does not pay much attention to municipalities, there is no public supervision over them. But, despite this, the public always knows that even

in such elections on election day there is massive falsification. Media, video and photo observers confirm that these actions are constantly repeated. Based on this logic, it can be considered quite likely that such a situation takes place in the presidential elections. And, as I already mentioned, I repeat once more, previous experience shows that, unfortunately, the authorities cannot give up this habit. Perhaps, according to their logic, they reason as follows: "In no way we can show the people who participate in elections, who manage them, that they have weakened the reins of government." In other words, the supposedly weakening of the general control exercised by the authorities can inspire thought, change the essence of power, and weaken it. Afterwards it can give the events a different direction, generate different trends. Apparently, those who rule the government, taking such a position, avoid this and do not want such an impression. From this point of view, it is expected that in the governance of the country they will continue to act harshly.

- There is no doubt that Ilham Aliyev will be president for the fourth term and for the next 7 years. How will the international community react to this?

- Unfortunately, we are witnessing today in the world that the values ​​and interests of real politics do not always coincide. Sometimes, from the point of view of real politics, the interests of states that occupy strong positions, having weight in international organizations, are more effective, and have decisive influence. This involuntarily forces countries like Azerbaijan to demonstrate non-irritating activity in terms of ensuring bilateral relations and common interests. We see this on the example of Belarus. From the previous contacts between the countries, it is clear that such a stiff position in these relations, like the one demonstrated by Belarus, does not have any effect at all. Naturally, Russia's factor also plays a role here. In addition, our region is more sensitive. Here there is Iran, Russia. At the same time, the gap in Turkey's relations with the West gives grounds for including it in this list. Among the political priorities of Turkey, there is no defense of democratic values. In this case, for countries such as Azerbaijan, especially for the Azerbaijani authorities, favorable conditions for maneuvering arise. As a result, when this is done in an undesirable form for Western states, dialogue becomes impossible. Naturally, in the West, dialogue is considered a priority, and they try to solve problems through bilateral negotiations, using various means, they are trying to create an atmosphere of trust. Sometimes these methods are invalid for a control mode of our type. I want to say that we must take seriously the fact that these values are also the essence of the philosophy on the basis of which the Council of Europe was created. There are countries that founded the Council of Europe. In addition, the creation of the OSCE was a necessity. There was a discourse of strengthening democracy along with security, and a discourse of the possibility, in effect, of ensuring both security and its durability through the creation of a stable democracy. But, unfortunately, there are some mechanisms due to which the international organizations countries like Russia are represented, and these structures need the finances of such countries, which also have the right to vote there. From the experience of international relations of recent times, we see that Russia, using the tools of democracy, the right to vote, financial influence, soft power and other factors, is determined to stop the processes of upholding democratic values ​​in certain countries, and redirect them towards generation problems. And this, as I have already noted, gives the regimes such as Azerbaijan the ability to maneuver. In the current situation, it can be seen that the West is trying to resort little to this rhetoric, despite the fact that Azerbaijan holds elections for the fourth time. It is sometimes argued that maybe the West, accepting the Muslim roots of Azerbaijan, taking into account its location in a sensitive region, its secularization and its ties with modern Europe, in this context makes not very high demands on it. In the recent past, a document containing the draft format of a strategic partnership between Azerbaijan and the European Union was promulgated, and there were requirements for the development of democracy and the protection of human rights in Azerbaijan. Naturally, the reaction of the Azerbaijani side to these demands was very sharp, according to which the sides still cannot reach mutual understanding. Apparently, this factor also causes, if possible, a soft attitude towards Azerbaijan and the establishment that in the course of the next processes it can be persuaded to move in the direction desired for them. That is, it seems that there is such an approach: if for you it is so important to create personal power, stay in power and form an international image, then we can give you this, but in this context you must listen to our calls. In other words, one feels in one way or another that such a dialogue, such a discussion took place. For public opinion, this is clear. But experience shows that over the past years such promises have been given, this type of carte blanche has been given a lot, and the government of Azerbaijan has promised much, but each time, in some form or other, evading promises, tried not to fulfill them. I do not think that in the future it will perform anything in any form. They just want to win time again. Because, in my opinion, the most important aspiration of the Azerbaijani government is to remain in power, to continue to rule. It is clear that that any softening of the regime can pose a threat to its power. It does not want to take such a risk. Therefore, using the tools of the West, trying to delay the time, turn the situation in its favor. However, in any case, the West notices all this. I think that, in the end, one day they will understand these realities and then they will speak a really effective language. At least, this time is lost by the Azerbaijani people, Azerbaijani society. This is the lost time from the resources of the Azerbaijani society. But it is impossible to go far by this type of approaches. That is, no matter how much the leading circles try to prolong their power, the world experience shows, that it is not possible to ensure this for a long time.