Experts doubt the effectiveness of so-called “Azerbaijani reforms”

Gubad Ibadoglu, an economics professor, recalls that in the Doing Business Ranking, Azerbaijan dropped by nine steps, which contradicts allegations of economic reform. In the Doing Business 2020 prepared by the World Bank, our country ranked 34th, whereas last year it ranked.  Georgia  ranks the 7th, Lithuania - 11th, Estonia - 18th, Latvia  - 19th, Kazakhstan - 25th, Russia -28th,  and Turkey  -33rd. Armenia slid from 41st place to 47th.

In this regard, Ibadoglu asks the government: If serious reforms are underway in Azerbaijan to facilitate entrepreneurship, then why is it difficult to do business with us? If, according to the criterion of paying taxes (in the same rating), Azerbaijan dropped two steps over the year, then what are the successful outcomes of the reforms? According to the criterion of registering property, Azerbaijan dropped by 27 steps, then why are the president’s decrees in this area so poorly implemented? - asks the professor of economics at an American university.

The former Foreign Minister Tofig Zulfugarov and journalist Rauf Mirkadyrov from Switzerland comment on the political bloc of “reforms”.

Rauf Mirkadyrov: “Everything must be remembered. Especially those who, even with the collapse of the empire, opposed the withdrawal of Azerbaijan from the USSR are still in power today. Most of them are ready today, if the party and Putin orders, to vote for Azerbaijan to become the province of Russia. One of them is even the deputy prime minister of the current government. Another eternal deputy. The third ambassador. The irony of fate is that almost all independence fighters subsequently ended up in the dungeons of independent Azerbaijan ...” Mirkadyrov concluded the thought.

Responding a question from Turan about personnel changes, he said, “During Stalin times the staff decided everything. Reforms are a new ideology, a new management system, and not new people. With a good system, even a bad manager cannot ruin everything. For the simple reason that it is limited to this system, there are balances. Without fundamental reforms affecting all spheres, we cannot create a good system of government. In this case, even a brilliant manager can achieve only local success. What we are observing is just a split in the ruling elite. This is an attempt to get rid of part of the traditional elite, and to be precise, from the "provincials" (it is not about the place of birth or who comes from somewhere, but about thinking) on ​​the "capital" and the oligarch ministers. That is all. This is not affecting foreign policy, at least not yet,” Rauf Mirkadyrov wrote from Switzerland.

Tofig Zulfugarov writes, “Some experts noted that the main figures of the “pro-Russian” orientation have either left or will soon leave the dominant Olympus. Is it so? the ex-minister asks. Does the incident mean that Azerbaijan in its foreign and domestic policy will become more pro-Western than it was before? As a rule, neighboring regional “players” in Russia, Turkey, Iran, as well as countries such as the USA and EU countries, which act, as a rule, by combining their efforts in this direction, are most active.

In the post-Soviet space, after the transfer of power by Nursultan Nazarbayev to his successor, the so-called party-economic nomenclature of the CPSU only remained in Azerbaijan and retained its power. In all other countries of the post-Soviet space, there was no one in key positions who came to power from the former "CPSU-Soviet elite". Although many today criticize and often fairly, the activities of these people, I would like to note as their merit that it was they, based on their experience, who created the state management system that stabilized the situation after the "turbulent beginning of the 90s." However, the above is the topic of a separate discussion, in which I may be in the minority.

It is quite natural that this group of people, traditionally oriented toward submission to the "center", was the core around which the pro-Russian oriented part of society was concentrated. They are extremely belated, their departure from the political scene was predetermined not only by the fact that the model of self-identification of politically active members of society changed in Azerbaijan itself, but also in the fact that Russia itself is becoming smaller and smaller both politically and economically, and of course , foreign policy, reminds the Soviet Union.

There is no doubt that the part of society that is subject to the Russian orientation faces a completely new task of how to make the idea of ​​distance Azerbaijan from Western values ​​attractive and direct it to building a new quality of relations with Russia. The success of this activity in my opinion so far seems to be unpromising, primarily because Russia has so far failed to demonstrate its principled position aimed at a fair settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. If this situation continues, then after the departure of the "last Mohicans" from the political arena, the tendency of the pro-Western orientation of Azerbaijan will intensify many times in foreign policy. I am sure that the openly pro-Russian, or rather pro-Lavrov political style of Elmar Mamedyarov, who is already almost unable to influence the public opinion of Azerbaijan on the issue of Armenian aggression, will not be able to counteract this. Therefore, the fate of the “Mamedyarov’s” foreign policy trend is a foregone conclusion because the “non-Lavrov” towers of the Kremlin are well aware that this outdated mechanism for ensuring the pro-Russian orientation of Azerbaijan’s foreign policy is already incapable. In politics, there is nothing more dangerous than the state when a politician is no longer seriously criticized, because he has turned into a banal object of ridicule.

In this regard, I would like to touch upon another, often-used tactic, which was effectively used in the post-Soviet space to strengthen anti-Western sentiments among the ruling elite. The talk  is about the practice of creating "sacred victims" when some oppositionist is demonstratively and undeservedly subjected to repression and arrest, which leads to active criticism of these actions in the West and forces those in power to strengthen their pro-Russian policy, because Moscow does not visually participate in this propaganda company. I hope everyone remembers what happened to Eynulla Fatullayev (who was imprisoned by the appeal of the Minister Mamedyarov) or the arrest of Mehman Aliyev and many others, who, without presenting any serious danger to the authorities, became the cause, rather, even an occasion to unleash the anti-Azerbaijani campaign in the West. By the way, this circumstance is very effectively used in Armenia and the Armenian diaspora, which, as if on command, begin to talk about "barbarism of the rulers of Azerbaijan" - and of course the impossibility of returning Karabakh to undemocratic Azerbaijan. This scenario has been repeated so many times that, frankly, it has ceased to excite anyone in Azerbaijan, which has shown the latest variation of this practice in relation to blogger Mehman Huseynov. Even for those who initiated the arrest of this young man, it was difficult to explain what kind of threat the authorities can face in the video reports about the villas of corrupt officials, whom the President removed or was preparing to remove from office.... I’m also sure that the practice of creating “sacred” victims of the “dictatorial regime” it also ceases to be effective because it does not fit into the global trend set by the Trump administration, - this is how T. Zulfugarov's Facebook post ends.