This is an early traditional election

***

- Nasimi bey, recently, re-nominated ex-MPs face some problems in the meetings with their voters during the campaign. Ordinary citizens protest against some re-nominated ex-MPs at meetings. What does this mean? Is it because people have a strong belief in reform, or do they already feel the need for new people who will really speak their word?

- We closely monitor the election process and conduct monitoring in various directions. The population is generally indifferent and unsure of the election issue. Only a single mature person does not believe in the promise of such political reforms. The idea that the election will end in a traditional manner still prevails. The majority realize that under these conditions, their voice will not be decisive. In our country, the term “elector” has already lost its legal significance. Instead, the phrase “voters” is more appropriate. Because voters are not allowed to elect. The government will still provide ones it wishes with the mandates. All the instance election commissions are under the strict control of the government. Legislative acts and normative documents remain the same. There is no minimum democratic environment in the country. Traditional oppressive political will has not changed too. It is naive to expect a democratic election from the government that does not approach to electoral reforms. The observation and analysis of the period up to the present day show that there are no signs of democratic elections.

With very few exceptions, it is possible that someone believes in reform or is presently acting as he/she believes for his/her own interests. There is not one real opponent and a truly independent person who believes in the promise of reform in society. But it is also true that society has a positive reaction to new people and new approaches. The population has been sympathetic to, has supported, and will continue to support those who can speak its word at all times.

- Why is there people’s aggression towards these old MPs?

- There are many reasons. We can note a few cases seen signally. The population still knows that the election process is not democratic. They respond to these people’s getting mandate again as their representatives. People are dissatisfied with many of the MPs who dissolved themselves and former local executive authorities. The absolute majority of those MPs have shown irreverent attitude to voters, they have always spoken and acted against the public interest instead of promoting and addressing the actual problems of society in parliament. Although they gave promises during elections, they hid from voters after the elections. They assisted in solving neither the individual nor the general problems of people. When people see them again, they unavoidable protest against them.

- The president or the Presidential Administration officials announce that in the current elections, people's choice will be the base and traditional methods will not work. But there are still reports that some candidates are using administrative methods and the support of local executive structures. Or they put pressure on other candidates. Even according to some reports, some say: “whether or not you elect, I will be a deputy”. It turns out that these candidates do not consider what the president and officials are saying? Or do all these statements not really matter?

- The statements that the people’s choice will be the base of the current election and traditional methods will not work are random words. If the government really respected the people’s choice, it would have carried out electoral reforms that the public trusted. It did not do this though it had all the opportunities. It hurriedly set early elections in the harshest period of winter. It did not allow a free election campaign for a second on the country televisions. Freedom of assembly was not guaranteed. Political prisoners were not released. Even if we look at the places allocated for candidates to meet their voters, we can see the real will. Officers work with specific tasks, not words and speeches in the media. Whatever they are entrusted with in the cabinets, they do it diligently.

- Among the current candidates, along with the old MPs, the majority are those who are represented by the Pashayevs clan, those who are said to have been members of the government arm, as well as those who work in the oil industry, and members of the Bar Association. Does this mean that there have been created new powers within the government?

- In fact, after the 2016 referendum, the staff renewal process has begun in the government camp. There are certain innovations in other areas, except law enforcement agencies. Sympathy and political support for the government in the society have been significantly lost. Political stability in the country is ensured only by unlawful interference by law enforcement agencies. This cannot be long-term, and there will be a need to resort to political means. The government identifies and takes steps, which will be able to strengthen it, one by one. It wants to see the people who can strengthen it at this stage without exception, exactly in the parliament too. Now, no matter how you call it, the administration is getting rid of the old team. Serious leverages of traditional regional power centers, which form the main social base of the government, are taken away. Strict control over the financial routes of oligarchs is applied. The ruling family does not want their security to depend on any social group or category, state or government agencies, or regional clans. All resources are controlled and gathered in one hand alone. It can be called a new power center.

- A few days ago, the chairman of the National Council, Jamil Hasanli and blogger Habib Muntazir disseminated a list of the results of the February 9 early parliamentary elections. Interestingly, where did they get this information from? Or how reliable can this list be? What might be the purpose of the dissemination of such a list before the election, and what does it mean?

- I would like to emphasize that the dissemination of the list of people, who “will be elected”, on the eve of the election is not the first case. Here, the pursuit of a specific purpose can only be a subjective claim of the interested parties. In 2015, the chairman of the National Council, Jamil Hasanli, released such a list and, mandates were given to persons, whose names were on the list, with a few exceptions. The preparation of lists by constituencies and its pre-dissemination are a form of protest directed against the election fraud of the government. In an unfree country, such issues should be treated normally. In a completely anti-democratic environment, the astonishment of the people, who are running for election, from such a list is quite surprising in itself.

In my opinion, if any active person without a specific source is conducting skin-deep research of the constituencies, he/she can almost come to that conclusion by himself/herself. It is possible that information from the middle and lower levels of the government is leaked to society. The lower layer covers more people and the execution of tasks are done just at the lower level. Middle and lower level officials tell some people who will be a deputy and the importance of how and whom to help someone. This information cannot be kept secret until the end and is definitely being leaked.

Second, some local officials deliberately disseminate it. Deprivation of MPs, to whom mandates were given, from public support works for them too. Although I do not deny there will be certain changes in the list, I am not in doubt that it will be mostly true.

Even during the summer months, information was circulating that the NAP had instructed its key functionaries to create an image of working with the population. The tasks such as actively engaging in discussions on social networks, listening to and trying to solve the problems of the population.

Even after the election has been commenced, there were unconventional instructions. The candidates of the government, in particular, have been warned that they will receive administrative support, but if they have any unforeseen problems in their area and these problems are publicized, it is their political and moral responsibility. There are mane and alternate candidates in all the constituencies. Either the results of the constitution will be annulled or the mandate will be given to those alternate candidates. The authorities, along with their candidates, have ordered local executive structures to hold an election with different views. We will see more clearly how much this can be followed on election day.

- Can we see anything different from the results of previous elections in the results of this election?

- Although there are some exceptions, there will be nothing that will change, especially with serious changes. It may not. The character of the government does not allow this.

This parliament will not gain public confidence and will not remain in operation until the end. It will create even more political problems for the government than before. As long as our country continues to be unfree, no positive political change is worth mentioning. This is an early traditional election.