Politically incorrect political landscape of Azerbaijan

***

-How do you think, what is the situation with observance of ethical norms in the political environment of Azerbaijan?

- Regarding the situation with respect for ethics in the political environment of the country, I can say that it is terrifying in both camps. Today, the political sphere of Azerbaijan is very sharply divided into two large camps: the opposition and the government. It is a pity that in their speeches, appeals to each other, both sides do not observe political correctness. The rhetoric of the same opposition shows that they are fighting with the use of not constructive, not robust criticism, but serious accusations. For example, they accuse each other of corruption, in the service of the authorities. And this is not criticism, but a more serious proposition. This is something very oppressive. Therefore, those whom we call the opposition are open-minded people who represent a democratic camp. They must be tolerant of criticism. This is our understanding. But, unfortunately, often we see quite the opposite. As for the authorities, the situation here is even worse. The authorities treat their rival, the opposition is pejorative. Here we are already witnessing not accusations, but insults. This also has its own reasons: such contemptuous rhetoric is inherent in authoritarian regimes and leaders. Recently, during the pre-election campaign in Turkey, President Erdogan used against the Republican People's Party (RPP), considered the main rival of the ruling party, humiliating and offensive language. He called the RPNP "pislik", which means "bad, bad; harmful ", and if literally, then - "dirt", that is, garbage. We heard similar rhetoric from the mouth and standing in power of the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. For example, Ilham Aliyev said that "this opposition should be thrown into the urn of history." That is, this manner of expressing is inherent in authoritarian leaders, they come out with very rhetorical rhetoric.

- Lately we sometimes see a degradation in the political struggle, in the struggle of some activists and in the struggle against them. Sometimes opposition parties begin to pursue each other or some particular person, choosing him as their victim. Or vice versa. What do you think are the reasons for this?

-The root of this problem is that we do not have a constructive struggle, activity. With great regret I note that today in the policy of Azerbaijan, in the country people engaged in politics are engaged not in it, but in its imitation. This has already become a fact. And there are objective reasons for this. Because there is no politics in the country. And there is no concrete political participation, participation in political processes. The reason for this is that the authorities made the society very closed.

-But if there is no politics in the country, then why did these people start a fight?

-This behavior of these people, and similar attacks against each other is just a manifestation of the instinct of self-preservation. If a person has sound thinking, he responds to constructive criticism with arguments and facts. Otherwise, seeing his weakness, he begins to attack, defame. I am very sorry, but all that we see now suits the authorities. That is, this - the rules of the game of power. The authorities want only one thing. The function of the opposition is to oppose the authorities, to dissent it. But, as we see, there is such a situation that the opposition is not against the authorities, but against itself. And the authorities only want that they are not the object of criticism, so that the struggle was not vertical, but horizontally. Then it should be horizontal. And the goal is known. And all this is due to the deplorable situation created by the authorities in the country. People cannot openly oppose the authorities with specific demands. In this case, it is required to show some kind of activity, or its appearance. And it's something people direct against each other.

- After the corruption debate in PACE, some of its deputies, including Pedro Agramunt (MP from Spain) and Samed Seyidov (Azerbaijan) were sanctioned. After that P. Agramunt resigned, and S. Seyidov said that he takes with pride this PACE decision. What does it say?

- "They say that lies must be so subtle that you yourself believe in it." And S.Seidov is now engaged in this. His statements are designed for the internal audience, intended for public opinion. Today there are various circles in the Azerbaijani society. There are active, knowledgeable about public processes, tracing the media, owning analytics. But there is another very large circle that has stayed away from all processes, knows nothing about what is happening, knows Azerbaijan only on television broadcasts, which deals with spreading a big lie. This is our society. And the statements spread by Seyidov are addressed to a large public audience. He linked the application against him to the PACE with sanctions against the functioning of the Armenian lobby. Allegedly, as a result of the activities of the Armenians against Azerbaijan, such measures were taken. But no one will tell S.Seyidov that then it turns out that all the work done so far by the Azerbaijani delegation to the PACE went wrong, and the foreign policy of Azerbaijan as a whole suffered a serious defeat. So, Armenians, having gathered forces, have achieved the application of such sanctions against the head of the Azerbaijani delegation? That is, such statements are a recognition of the strength of the Armenians and the weakness of Azerbaijan's foreign policy? So far the domestic audience has been told quite the opposite: that Azerbaijan's foreign policy is successful, that thanks to it we have won over Armenians, that our diaspora, our image ... etc., etc., etc. That is, there is already a contradiction here. The authorities, knowing the mood, the state of the internal audience, of society, this is how the public is oriented. Seidov's statement should inspire public opinion that the whole scandal was not due to corruption, but to the consequences of the intrigues of the same Armenians. After all, the authorities can not admit that it is a scandal because of bribes amounting to about $ 3 billion. This in itself can cause serious protests. In all that is happening today, we see the manifestation of one of the characteristic features of authoritarian regimes.

- Why does not Azerbaijan have culture of retirement? After this incident, the question involuntarily arises: why have not we seen the resignation of any political or public figure, regardless of the fact, is he a representative of the government or the opposition, who was repeatedly severely blamed?

-The answer is one. Because there are no alternative choices. Elections mean accountability, responsibility, credit of trust. A person should know that he is responsible to voters, is accountable to them, depends on them, that the mandate, the credit is given for a while, and they can be withdrawn. And if all this is not, then not only about the culture of resignation, but about politics in general cannot be a question. With great regret I want to note that at times we face a similar situation in the opposition. Sincerely I will tell you: I often see how some actions are manifested both in the authorities and the opposition. There is the same approach to things, the same way of thinking. A political party can have an authoritative leader, but one cannot turn it into an idol, create a cult of its personality. In my view, the leader is a person, whose support is his followers. People who believe in him support him. He is believed. But these same people are able and can express to him their attitude, their opinion. I note with great regret that for several years the chairmen have not changed in political parties. The leader is the one who justifies his leadership in the activity. If he cannot lead the party ahead, then he has problems. This is not a leader, but a functionary. This, in the first place. And secondly, the leader should have his own attitude to everything, his own position. None of the leaders, whom we consider democratic, is such. Since there is a certain system, the method: If you failed to fulfill your mission, you must sincerely give way to another. That is, there must be continuity. Today I feel with great regret that the Azerbaijani opposition is also monopolized. The authorities say, show someone who is able to make us an alternative. True, the authorities did not create conditions for the appearance of politicians, political functionaries and leaders, they even blocked the entire political system. Let's see what happens in the opposition. The opposition blocked itself. And it did not allow that the leaders matured in it, new faces appeared. One generation has already changed. And now whose name can we list except the old-timer? What new leaders can we name in the parties created 20 years ago? This is also a serious problem. I want to say that here we see a monopoly, and not a healthy environment.

-How do you think, where will this course of events lead? Is there any way out?

- There is always a way out. The main thing is that there is a desire and will of people that they really want to work. If there is a desire to work, indeed, a person will make the mind more active, and even where all the doors are closed, he will find, if small, but hope, a small gleam. And then, breaking the gap there, he will open the door. If opposition organizations, political parties that are able to manage activities, in fact, go after some idea they really believe in, then, having found that gleam, they will come out of the situation. But as for the real situation, it is very difficult for me to manage it now, being under pressure, in a very problematic situation, to carry out some kind of activity. For example, the head of the "Wake up" movement Nahid Jafarov wanted to awaken some activity in social networks. And he began the symbolic action "The Hourglass". From abroad through social media, this can be done in this form. But today in Azerbaijan the real situation is such that truly opposition organizations for objective reasons cannot openly carry out such actions. But this does not mean that we should, with lowered hands, not react in any way to all this oppression, to this pressure. I believe that everything that should happen will happen here, inside the country. And this will come from the people. Now the government has brought the situation to the point of being face to face with the people. Before that, there was a certainty that there might be a slight softening in the system. But if the authorities have achieved that the society has become so closed, brought to naught, neutralized by political parties, civil society, then after this opposition or civil society it is very difficult to carry out activities to achieve their goals. Everything that can happen in Azerbaijan will happen spontaneously. The people themselves will reach such a state that passive protesters, who make up the vast majority, will become active and will come out on the square. But this does not mean that the opposition organizations, the structures of civil society, moving aside should be self-isolated. They must continue to work with the people as much as they can. Conducting large rallies did not have any effect. So, people have to work in some other way. This must be done. Today, people are concentrated in social media. And the activity is shown in social networks. They are virtualized. But a person wants a lively dialogue. He needs to communicate in some form live. Having found some adequate form, you should go on living with people. There is no need to PR, to do so demonstratively. Everyone must do the work for which his strength and resources are enough. But it must be really, not virtually.