The year to come, what is it bearing?

As far back as 6 months ago the Azerbaijani society seemed to drown itself in heavy lethargic sleep. An impression was that the public activity fell into malls, cafes and fancy weddings (who had money enough). Cloakroom debates only touched upon prospects of our economy, our policy in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, etc.

It should be remembered that unexpectedly the situation changed. These included serious cadre changes in ruling establishment, dismissal of some mediocre persons, declaration of new elections to Milli Majlis, and it transpired that the lethargic sleep was none other than apparition.  

It really transpired that the active part of society has longed for changed and been poised to take part in elections. It also transpired that there has been a faltering hope that «this time» things would be different and no ironic remark of the former Russian Prime Minister: «We wished our best, you know the rest».

To be noticed, it’d be difficult to forecast «this time», however, «may I have the floor» to express my concern about first paces of «reform» process. There were attempts both by the authorities and society to resolve the issue.

Let’s start with the authorities as a key «actor» in the «reform» process to concentrate practically all administrative resources.

As near as we can tell, the authorities rule out any serious political reforms to place their stake on young technocrats and solely technocratic decisions.

It’d be wrong to consider this choice erroneous. At first site, this choice is expected to yield results (it did in the tax system); so it might be predicted that sooner or later the technocratic resource would exhaust itself.

 It should be noted that the reforms may start from above, from the authorities proper but sooner or later they must rely on the public confidence and support; on the initiativeна and independent activity of society.

It must be acknowledged that the authorities are meant to talk with the society not in a patronizing way but with the equal partner. However, no government officials of the country, President included, are in no position to communicate with the society on equal footing.

Figuratively, the reforms cannot be implemented on a scheduled basis or technocratic principles. The reform must provide for «uncertainties», «self-organizing», «excessiveness» and even «randomness» («order out of chaos»). That explains the need in political freedoms; that’s why the authorities in charge of reforms have to obtain information from various sources, including cultural spheres far cry from economic reforms.

It will be remembered that our government has just started reforms but regretfully began immediately ignoring public sentiments.

Note that there is a multi-cited expression characterizing the autocratic regimes: «I want to make my people happy but my people keep me away from doing this».

This is not the case that I’m seeking to denounce our authorities as «autocratic» (our political regime is rather moderate); the problem is that the authorities are not perceived as elective nor executive; instead, it deprives us of the right to determine our fate independently.

When I talk about my concern, I mean the following factors (there are other factors as well; perhaps more essential).

It must be borne in mind that recent municipal elections have held in the old-fashioned way: formally on the one hand, and complete disregard of voters’ opinion.

I understand the implications of the fact that the authorities cannot immediately get regenerated; in other words, it’ll still act by inertia for a long time. However, sooner or later they must understand that in an effort to avoid risks it’ll stir up increased risks. To say nothing of the fact that the municipal elections could provide the authorities with more credit to their own citizens.

Below cited are other relevant factors.

It’d be appropriate to remind that in anticipation of the new year the authorities declared the enactment of the law on compulsory real estate insurance and compulsory health insurance.

I’m no judge in insurance matters but why have the authorities started the year with intimidating citizens?

What do I mean?

When the Public Television had discussed a matter of compulsory real estate insurance, a discussant (public official) pressured on «penalties», «penalties only»; otherwise, nothing will get done.

That’s what it is – a philosophy that generates a gap between the executive power (whose will does it follow?) and the society proper. A couple of high ranking officials like the one stated above, and it’s easy to guess results of our «reforms».

Below-quoted are a few words about my concern about the so-called «on the part of society».

One must bear in mind that beyond any doubt the society, from journalists to experts, is due to voice its own standpoint, its harsh and straight-talk criticism. Unfortunately, I cannot accept a widely spread total skepticism («that’s not going to happen because nothing will get done in Azerbaijan») that some of us are taking unholy joy in blunders of the authorities in an attempt to display our wit.

Most significantly, I would not like to act an attorney for the government (even despite the fact that I see no crime in «advocating» as it is in itself, I oppose creeping), yet, it is important to be conscious of the fact that our government is mostly a continuation of ourselves.

Particular emphasis needs to be placed on the fact that the authorities are cynical about the society just as the society is cynical about the authorities. Elimination of the mutual mistrust is meant to mark the beginning of reforms (without quotation marks) in the country.

As far back as 6 months ago the Azerbaijani society seemed to drown itself in heavy lethargic sleep. An impression was that the public activity fell into malls, cafes and fancy weddings (who had money enough). Cloakroom debates only touched upon prospects of our economy, our policy in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, etc.

It should be remembered that unexpectedly the situation changed. These included serious cadre changes in ruling establishment, dismissal of some mediocre persons, declaration of new elections to Milli Majlis, and it transpired that the lethargic sleep was none other than apparition.  

It really transpired that the active part of society has longed for changed and been poised to take part in elections. It also transpired that there has been a faltering hope that «this time» things would be different and no ironic remark of the former Russian Prime Minister: «We wished our best, you know the rest».

To be noticed, it’d be difficult to forecast «this time», however, «may I have the floor» to express my concern about first paces of «reform» process. There were attempts both by the authorities and society to resolve the issue.

Let’s start with the authorities as a key «actor» in the «reform» process to concentrate practically all administrative resources.

As near as we can tell, the authorities rule out any serious political reforms to place their stake on young technocrats and solely technocratic decisions.

It’d be wrong to consider this choice erroneous. At first site, this choice is expected to yield results (it did in the tax system); so it might be predicted that sooner or later the technocratic resource would exhaust itself.

 It should be noted that the reforms may start from above, from the authorities proper but sooner or later they must rely on the public confidence and support; on the initiativeна and independent activity of society.

It must be acknowledged that the authorities are meant to talk with the society not in a patronizing way but with the equal partner. However, no government officials of the country, President included, are in no position to communicate with the society on equal footing.

Figuratively, the reforms cannot be implemented on a scheduled basis or technocratic principles. The reform must provide for «uncertainties», «self-organizing», «excessiveness» and even «randomness» («order out of chaos»). That explains the need in political freedoms; that’s why the authorities in charge of reforms have to obtain information from various sources, including cultural spheres far cry from economic reforms.

It will be remembered that our government has just started reforms but regretfully began immediately ignoring public sentiments.

Note that there is a multi-cited expression characterizing the autocratic regimes: «I want to make my people happy but my people keep me away from doing this».

This is not the case that I’m seeking to denounce our authorities as «autocratic» (our political regime is rather moderate); the problem is that the authorities are not perceived as elective nor executive; instead, it deprives us of the right to determine our fate independently.

When I talk about my concern, I mean the following factors (there are other factors as well; perhaps more essential).

It must be borne in mind that recent municipal elections have held in the old-fashioned way: formally on the one hand, and complete disregard of voters’ opinion.

I understand the implications of the fact that the authorities cannot immediately get regenerated; in other words, it’ll still act by inertia for a long time. However, sooner or later they must understand that in an effort to avoid risks it’ll stir up increased risks. To say nothing of the fact that the municipal elections could provide the authorities with more credit to their own citizens.

Below cited are other relevant factors.

It’d be appropriate to remind that in anticipation of the new year the authorities declared the enactment of the law on compulsory real estate insurance and compulsory health insurance.

I’m no judge in insurance matters but why have the authorities started the year with intimidating citizens?

What do I mean?

When the Public Television had discussed a matter of compulsory real estate insurance, a discussant (public official) pressured on «penalties», «penalties only»; otherwise, nothing will get done.

That’s what it is – a philosophy that generates a gap between the executive power (whose will does it follow?) and the society proper. A couple of high ranking officials like the one stated above, and it’s easy to guess results of our «reforms».

Below-quoted are a few words about my concern about the so-called «on the part of society».

One must bear in mind that beyond any doubt the society, from journalists to experts, is due to voice its own standpoint, its harsh and straight-talk criticism. Unfortunately, I cannot accept a widely spread total skepticism («that’s not going to happen because nothing will get done in Azerbaijan») that some of us are taking unholy joy in blunders of the authorities in an attempt to display our wit.

Most significantly, I would not like to act an attorney for the government (even despite the fact that I see no crime in «advocating» as it is in itself, I oppose creeping), yet, it is important to be conscious of the fact that our government is mostly a continuation of ourselves.

Particular emphasis needs to be placed on the fact that the authorities are cynical about the society just as the society is cynical about the authorities. Elimination of the mutual mistrust is meant to mark the beginning of reforms (without quotation marks) in the country.