Fraudulent election

***

-How do you evaluate the results of the election? Is it fair, transparent in line with legislation or traditionally falsified?

- As a matter of fact, should the election be held as election process, it’d be possible to discuss its results.  However, just as in the past, we witnessed a fraudulent election in Azerbaijan, so results proved the same. In spite of the fact that Milli Majlis was dissolved out of turn, 89 deputies from the previous parliament became nominees while the previous parliament was dissolved at 99% voting for dissolution. Also, 69 of them «elected» as new. To be exact, it was announced that they had been elected. This went to show that an idea of parliament renovation has never been vital. The election process retained in public’s memory with numerous violations at all stages. First of all, the election process is mass media activity.

There is lack of sequence in Azerbaijan, so mass media’ prejudice makes it no possible to get information about election process. Of 24 TV-channels available in Azerbaijan, 12 channels are central; 12 channels local, and just 16 radio stations. There are total 40 radio and television companies of which just the Public television channel joined the election process. The latter has to join due to statutory requirement. This remained as a statement only, for there were no large discussions or general information on paid or free of charge basis. Note that in 2010 every candidate had 4 minutes of free air. However, this practice has no longer used.

The essential point to remember is that the cost of the paid campaign was very high – 4602 manats in prime time. That’s why Adil Aliyev only used a paid advertisement. Besides, just state-financed media structures such as AzerTac and newspaper «Azerbaijan» were able to publish CEC and DEC bulletins. More than 2,000 to 2400 were minded to be nominated, and initially above 1,400 were registered as nominees.

It is worth pointing out that mass media presented a fragmentary report of them. Those active in social networks are aware that they were involved in the election process through social networks. Note that 70 million manats from the state budget remained unused. Mass media did not seriously criticize the opposition and declined from any «opposition» in the country. True, registration procedures went in calmer atmosphere as compared to previous years. There some violations but not serious. The OSCE report said that the main problem was as follows: candidates were easily admitted to the election but faced with stronger pressures in its results.

On the date of the election the CEC dispersed practically false information in all constituencies. Thus, the CEC plucked quorum figures out of the air and thus increased attendance ration up to 48% while the population’s participation was built on merry-go-round data, so the actual figures made up less than 20% of voters.

It is worth citing that problems were typical for all constituencies. Social networks reported on competitive struggle in some constituencies. Where no competitive struggle was observed, the authorities safely fixed pre-marked results in protocols.

- Were international organizations receptive to the election? President noted that there had been no serious criticism this time. He even characterized an OSCE ODIHR preliminary report as balanced. Are reports of all international organizations on the election results really moderate?

- It must be acknowledged that statements of international organizations are surrealistic to some extent. Note that the OSCE ODIHR held long-term observations at the election. When comparing both interim and final reports of one and the same organizations, we see that the report harshly criticizes the government and openly points to issues. It says about non-compliance with European Court decisions, unequal distribution of priorities in CEC formation, as well as unilateral pre-election campaign, mass media prejudiced attitude, etc.

It must be borne in mind that I read these comments from beginning to end and don’t understand how this report could be called as moderate. The point is that the report based on post-election results was presented euphemistically. But in reality the report is rather harsh to contest the election. As a matter of fact, the election proved not to be manifestation of society’s will as legitimate process.

Leaving aside the report, it is easy to notice society’s displeasure with the election process, according social network monitoring. That’s why some international organizations, for instance, parliamentarians and observers from Turkey, Russia and CIS countries lays an emphasis on the fact that the power is transient. Naturally, their statements are taken with a grain of salt, especially as observations have not been held for long and, hence, unreliable. Note that the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights submitted a keynote address on long-term observations. This organization’s view is rather critical and contests the election.

- How do you evaluate mass media activity in the election campaign, and on the date of the election? Are mass media able to cope with their work? Are there conditions for independent mass media to act?

- It has to be kept in mind that traditional mass media, television, radio and press agencies of Azerbaijan held aloof of the election process. As the Institute of Democratic Initiatives we were engaged in monitoring for 60 days. The period in question was divided into two parts. We monitored the election separately over the past 22 days and over the previous 38 days. Note that 60 days reports obviously favored the authorities and pro-governmental parties.

It is worth pointing out that total information – 96% fell on AZTV; 95,5% on REAL TV; 92% on Public Television and 73,3% of the same channel in favor of the authorities. There was no balanced information in favor of the opposition.  

As for the election day, it was notable for numerous violations, tens of access limitation facts for journalists, particularly in election commissions. After seven o’clock in the evening there were problems with polling, non-admission of observers, mass media incapability to get information on legal basis at the CEC and DEC where journalists received no response to their queries. A number of legal claims on the matter have already been filed.

One must bear in mind that mass media representatives were aggressively pressured after the election, especially when they highlighted sit-in protests of some candidate claiming that the election procedures were undemocratic and fraudulent. Suffice it to say that 16 journalists were arrested, some of them beaten. Thus, Mustafa Hajibeyli,Aynur Elgunash,  Sevinc Vagifgyzy, Hayala Agayeva, «Voice of Americas», «Radio Liberty» representatives were faced with strong pressures. At present, 11 journalists filed their complaints to the prosecution office demanding to ensure accountability for violence and pressures.

It is worth remembering that the election process was notable for serious violations in mass media work. Regretfully, there were no organizations to monitor mass media while many of others were paralyzed to monitor. In short, it was social networks of Azerbaijan that highlighted the election while traditional mass media stood aside the process.

- Following the election results we witnessed protests from other nominees, as well as political organizations and separate citizens. The CEC cancelled results in some constituencies. What do you think, is the disqualification of the results due to these protests?

- To my thinking, CEC actions are pre-planned political show. Note that refusal to some constituencies is not due to protests. When it is talked to the content of the decision, it looks like the execution of tasks set above than evaluation of facts. As a matter of fact, should the CEC really assess facts, a criminal case would be opened. The election marked a lot of crimes falling under Articles 159, 159-1, 160, 161 of the Criminal Code. There are criminal facts in each 5,500 constituencies.

It should be noted that if the prosecution office fails to start investigation, this is to say that the process goes in certain political context, not impartially. The purpose is to calm a wide public down and give testimony to international organizations as saying you see, there were violations, some removed.

It will suffice to notice that the demagogic rhetoric cited above is directed to making semblance of minimum violations and their restricted distribution in some constituencies. As a matter of fact, the election was not fair in Azerbaijan. The election did take place, results abortive. Note that the presentation of the results was fully controlled from outside and predetermined. Ultimately, early parliamentary election in Azerbaijan is to be upgraded and held without administrative interference and pressure of political parties.

- What can we expect from the new parliament? What should the parliament of Azerbaijan do to secure its image in the eyes of international organizations? Can the parliament be recognized legitimate?

- It is impossible to do what is not legitimate in the eye of society. As a matter of fact, if the parliament has no idea of what the election is; if it is actually appointed, there is no more talk about it. Factually speaking, the government’s primary objective has always been denial of the very concept of strong parliament as independent branch of the authority.

Note that the parliament is considered to be strong when it relies on people, fairly represents it. When the deputies thank President, in the first turn, this is to say that they represent power, not people. It’d be naïve to think that the executive power-based parliament would be effective is none other than belief in bedtime stories.