Pool exit

***

-Anar bey, what local and international organizations will monitor early Parliamentary elections? And what local and international organizations will be in charge of responsible «exit poll»?

-It will suffice to mention that election monitoring at local and international levels in Azerbaijan are different. Local monitoring may be carried on both a level of political parties and non-governmental associations, as well as ordinary citizens in private capacity. To conduct monitoring, international structures must get invitation from the Central Electoral Commission and Foreign Ministry. At present, it is the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights that has received invitation and got down to long-term monitoring. Besides, PACE Parliamentary Assembly, OSCE, CIS countries and the Europarliament have been invited but the latter declined from arriving. As for local organizations, it is our organization that has for long been involved in monitoring process. For lack of registration, we have to monitor on the basis of cooperation with citizens. The point to be emphasized is that the Electoral Code admits that any person can be registered privately to monitor elections. That’s why we are collaborating with citizens that express willingness voluntarily.

It must be borne in mind that from the start of the election campaign we receive information from citizens residing in regions, we scrutinize it and make our conclusion. It should be noted that exit polls in Azerbaijan have been conducted since 2003. But we have issues to structures involved in exit polls at local level for 16 years. First, their methodology is unclear, in particular, how they organize and conduct trainings, draw people and prepare questionnaires. Second, their cooperation with local executive power, especially as they perpetually interfere with the process. It is rather difficult to get their consent to any actions or seminars. What needs to be done to persuade their representatives that organizations in charge of exit polls have to conduct seminars, trainings and draw people. So, numerous issues arise on the matter. According to reports of activists obtained from regions, these structures rally people with the help of executive power. Another issue is attraction of international structures and alleged use of their methodology.

However, it remains unclear how these visiting international structures are financed, how they are drawn, etc. – these are all open questions revealing vulnerability of financial transparency. One must allow that these foreign organizations have unsavory reputation. As a matter of fact, no self-respecting organization will ever conduct exit-poll in a country like Azerbaijan. Consent of such an organization to conduct exit poll is illustrative of its tarnished reputation and negative image, for no authoritative structures will ever involve in conducting an exit poll in authoritarian countries. As a whole, this is to indicate that exit polls conducted in Azerbaijan cannot be transparent, impartial and trustworthy.

-Can we take these organizations as impartial? What do your observations say? How do you evaluate organizations involved in the elections?

-When evaluating impartiality of election-related organizations, it is necessary to rely on international principles. Note that principles of observation at local and international levels are widely adopted by authoritative structures and hundreds of organizations and spread worldwide. One of them was drafted in 2005. Note that these rules and principles of the activity of international observers are adopted by many countries and international organizations. As for these principles in respect of Azerbaijan, it is important to note that an organization in charge of observation is meant to implement this goal in the long-term perspective.

The point to be emphasized is that short-term observations are not professional and authoritative. Under this document, an organization in charge of observation is set to carry out a long-term mission, thrash out all aspects and stages of the elections. If guided by this principle, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights may be reputed to be more authoritative and professional international organization. These principles matter most for local observation organizations.

One must bear in mind that our organization acts upon the principles cited above. Most active among local organizations engaged in this area is AVCIYA which is notable for its anti-governmental actions. However, I’ve never witnessed that this organization is practicing any methodology or impartial assessment in the course of elections. Note that this organization has always acknowledged CEC-publicized data.

In spite of the fact that Azerbaijan has got decisions of the European Court on the Parliamentary elections, this organization fails to notice the issues in question. As a matter of fact, the organization is active as GONGO («A government-organized non-governmental organization»). They have no objective titles (cause of the right or position regarding election observations in the country).

As for international organizations, the most debatable point is a mission of CIS observers. It’d be wrong to consider this structure as professional: it visits Azerbaijan for 3-4 days, hence, it is not as if observations are held at a professional level. Observations cannot be conducted for 1-2 days, since it is the complex process and set to start on the eve and go down to the end of the elections. However, observation mission of CIS countries declines from doing it, therefore I consider its activity prejudiced.

-As usual, the authorities are castigating impartially minded organizations. In so doing, they refer to reports of international structures that express appreciation. What needs to be done to resolve differences?

-It is obvious that the authorities do not accept conclusions of critically minded organizations, ignore them regardless of whether it is local or international structure. Since 2005, our organization has no contacts with electoral commissions due to the elections in Azerbaijan. Our last dialogue with electoral commissions took place in 2005. Since then, we maintain no contacts. The facts we revealed are not investigated, nor attitudes are expressed, and we are ignored.

This suggests that the given structure is irreconcilable to impartial electoral observation and thereby echoes the position of the Azerbaijani authorities.

It should be noted that various governmental representatives criticized local electoral organizations; however, the latter ignored them. As for international organizations, no political will was shown to discuss issues even despite the fact that the CE Venetian commission and OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights had repeatedly submitted their recommendations.

-As usual, the authorities are seeking to plant their lobbyists into observational mission of the authoritative international organization. It is natural that these organizations are not familiar with the situation in Azerbaijan. Can these organizations be immune to manipulations of these persons? 

- Lobbyists of this type are few. From time to time, these structures demonstrate their political position. In my view, it is impossible to push back against OSCE observers, since they are working over specific documents. In other words, this assessment is based on actual documents. For instance, when you accept questionnaires from one and the same observer and make your assessments. Suppose, results are good, bad, very bad, their quantity makes it possible to have total result. However, authorities fail to plant their lobbyists into truly intrinsic political position to have certain pro-governmental statements.

It has to be kept in mind that no situation of this sort is expected to take place at the elections. The point is that the number of politicians to monitor the elections is few. Where too many politicians are involved in the process, it is as if they pursue their own political purposes and ready to make political statements. However, current observations are indicative that the number of politicians visiting the country is insignificant. So threats to introduce lobbyists into these missions are no longer a factor.

- Organizations in charge of monitoring and exit-poll are largely proceeding from position of the government. How best to face against these organizations?  

- To my thinking, conduct of exit-poll has not become tradition. The point is that exit-poll is none other poll at exit. It includes the opinion poll of citizens at the electoral station. A climate of fear is prevalent in Azerbaijan today. Citizens are apprehensive of having their say at polling stations and even polling booth. It is out of the question for voters to make statements and openly report on their choice.

It cannot be emphasized enough that exit-polls have no future in countries like Azerbaijan. However, this method does not pay and has to be backed out. It is worth pointing out that exit-poll is effective in countries with relatively democratic social and political atmosphere where citizens can speak their mind freely.

However, this is not the case with countries like Azerbaijan. This methodology is ineffective and senseless, and our country fails to stand the trial. It is nothing else than a manipulation with election results. To ensure effectiveness of exit-polls, it is crucial to uphold the quality of voting in line with principles of law.

- Is there a need in monitoring and exit-poll for conducting fair and transparent elections? How much funds are allocated for this purpose and what can be done? What are you getting at?

-I think that the Azerbaijani authorities must know, take into account and explore views of observers, journalists and parties irrespective of whether they are observers or not. Should negative facts are disclosed, one cannot ignore them. If this is not the case, a role of observers at the elections will be increasingly depreciated.

It has to be kept in mind that observers’ mission is to monitor the process and voice their own view on the issue. If election commissions fail to take their comments into consideration, electoral institutions will decline in importance, and electoral activity will go down and people will no longer believe in elections. To remove obstacles mentioned above, it is essential to rely on observers’ opinion. It’s a matter of great importance. If failed, electoral institutions will no longer work to become irrelevant in terms of power change.