What happens in the Coalition EITI?

Journalists, friends on Facebook, and others ask many question of what is happening in the Coalition  Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (СEITI) represented by me. Everyone is asking: "What's going on in the Coalition?" I am sympathetic to the right and desire of these people to get information about what is happening, so I present  some brief remarks.

On October 30, the regular General Meeting of the Coalition, which was attended by 141 organizations Coalition-members, as well as representatives of the State Commission, the International Secretariat, foreign embassies. At such a productive meeting were held  democratic and transparent elections. New Coalition Council and the Monitoring Group were elected. Many of the civil society activists who have an independent position, won in these elections a success. After the meeting representatives of some communities and people disgruntled with elections, made irrelevant claims regarding the politicization of the Coalition’s leadership. Naturally, my friends in the National Council also express interest in the Common Meeting. I wrote  a status in a closed group consisting of the leadership of the National Council consisting of  order of 8-9 people. In this group the information is transferred for internal use, where and briefly described the situation; then immediately began a “storm in a tea cup.” Quite unexpectedly a member of the National Assembly of the Coordinating Council, in the form  improper for her age and status, without asking permission, made public a status written by me. It was not ethical and it is wrong,  because she passed the status  to the Coalition network and the pro-government press. Now do you understand what's going on? The man, who is considered an authoritative representative of the leading opposition, secretly brings to the side  the closed information. And she  explained it  by the fact that there are inaccuracies in the information. If this is true, then why did not she share her thoughts with colleagues in the same closed group?

Why did she immediately  make "Screenshot", and  transferred the status to the government's press? Can a representative of the intelligentsia with  an independent thinking, secretly passed  the information to the government camp? After the incident, in accordance with the Charter and the principles of the Coordination Center of the National Council, the man was expelled from the National Assembly. Some have called the act  of Mehriban a model of courage and dignity (!?), and a campaign of blackening of the National Council has been launched. However,  I think there is not a  great difference between the secret transferring  information from a closed group and the proliferation of video on the personal life of journalist Khadija Ismayilova.

What was written in the status?

Below is a quote in the form of theses  of the status published in Facebook  in the closed group.

1. "The plan of the authorities  to turn the Coalition into a public association, to register it, and to take control failed." One of the original authors of the proposal to register the Coalition as a legal entity is the director of the Oil Fund, the chairman of the government commission Shahmar Movsumov. Even at the General meeting  I stated openly that registration of the Coalition extends the ability of the authorities to control it. It would be nice if the authorities  solve the problem of registration of nearly 40 NGOs - members of the Coalition, which in accordance with the law, would be registered as a Union. This option is more consistent with the interests of the Coalition than its transformation into a registered public association. It is a serious mistake to think that the above proposal of Shahmar Movsumov does not come from the government and from his concern for the civil society. Members of the Coalition rightly did not accept this proposal.

2. "The candidates proposed by us were elected to the Council (50 + 1) and MG (2/3)". Some believe that "we" - is the National Council. However, it was explained that we are talking about active civil society represented in the Coalition, independent from the authorities, having their position. As a result of the election, three of the four members proposed by the National Council were not elected. If the National Council had some plans, these people would be elected.

3. "Despite all resistance and anti-propaganda, for which 400 thousand manats were allocated, the authorities failed in question of the Council working group election." The day before and on the day of the meeting there was a propaganda against me and my friends,  and the authors confirmed this fact. Speaking about the "allocated 400,000 manat", it was meant that in the declared by the NGO Support Board competition  for the first time was added the direction associated with the Transparency Initiative. As part of the project, prior to the General Meetings,  almost for 40 organizations were allocated 345,000 manats. In addition, twice (and this is the first time - Ed.) for  office expenses of the Coalition were allocated 16,500 manat  and 15,000 manat. On the holding the General Meetings has been allocated 7,500 manat.

Only last year total of 400,000 manat were allocated. On the other hand, in the Charter of the Coalition was the requirement to hold a general meeting in December last year. Extension of the meeting after the announcement of the grant competition in itself creates questions. Of course, we do not believe that  after the money allocated by the government  the Coalition members changed their views  and became pro-government. On the contrary, the  soft control tactics by the government  filed. That is, in spite of the funds allocated by the authorities, and political and financial support of the Coalition, its new leadership was not formed of people loyal to the government.  Mostly people with independent position  have been elected. If someone claims that the government allocated the funds to support civil society, they are mistaken. If the authorities of Azerbaijan are actually interested in the situation of civil society, in this case, the civil society would have not been  dropped to the bottom of a deep well; there would not be reactionary amendments to the legislation on NGOs,  donors would not be expelled from the country, and  would not  be treated almost as slaves. "The loss of powers" means that the elections were lost by candidates close to the authorities, or  their ardent supporters.

The answer to the claim:

Some circles, inspired with the fact that the status of a closed group of the National Council has been submitted to the public opinion, began to put forward the following allegations:

1.      Coalition is politicized. Of the 150 members of the Coalition  only 21 members have a political orientation (http://eiti-ngo-azerbaijan.org/az/koalisiya/uzvl%C9%99r/). Most of these conflicting forces in the political camp ( "Yeni Azerbaijan" Umid, PFPA, Classic Popular Front, Musavat, Democratic Party). In the newly formed electoral bodies of 16 people (11 members of the Board and 5 members Monitoring Group), only four (three Council members and 1 - MG) have political affiliations. Yes, and they belong to different parties and have a different outlook. As for the aforementioned 21 members, the majority of them have been members of the Coalition for a long time. The current composition of the Coalition Council on its political factor is the most meager in comparison with previous years, as in previous years, there were  only 5,6,7, and even 8 people. How can the coalition be politicized? On the other hand, how can one explain that on the eve of the start of the General Meetings, in contradiction of the Constitution and existing experience,  there appear official in the Board claiming all sorts of financial and political support to the Coalition. They do not provide an opportunity  of the presence of  the International  EITI Board as a representative of civil society, Gubad Ibadoglu; he is not even given  an opportunity to speak. Maybe those sitting in the Board and expressing support for the Coalition officials were once the leaders of the National Council, the APF, Classic Popular Front, and we did not know about this? How can this be, that holding meetings with political and financial support of the authorities and the implementation of a toothless activities regarding them is not controlled by the authorities, and democratically elected a few people with political affiliation to the Council of the Coalition means the transition under control of the opposition? In fact, compatible with the new standards, the Coalition should be on equal side from the authorities and political forces. Some words about this distance mean only political force. However, for some reason, they do not "remember" about the government. But there  can be an answer: if the order of the president on the representation to the Coalition in the multilateral group of persons appointed to office in two different structures  is not contrary to the   new standards? Whose opinion would support this man, if necessary - government or civil society?

Retreat; If those who are sincerely concerned about the "politicization" of the Coalition, as well as the "transition" of its management under the control of political forces, are really independent in their judgment and really reflect the interests of civil society, then why do not they expressed their concern with the fact that lately the Coalition was gradually passed under the control of the authorities. It was toothless and ineffective. Why did not  they oppose the statement of the  former coordinator of the Council, which was contrary to the Provisions and was pro-government. Why  was not expressed concern that  on April 13, 2016 on behalf of the Coalition Council's  the international partners were sent an appeal, creating the vision that  all problems with civil society in Azerbaijan had been solved  (see http://eiti-ngo-azerbaijan.org/az/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Beynelxalq-teshkilatlara-muraciet-son.pdf). Why  did not the Coalition Council  issue a statement protesting against the unjustified prosecution and unlawful arrest of its members - the veteran of Karabakh Asif Yusifli and Fuad Gahramanli, as well as those who were forced to leave their homeland, who have been subjected to political repression - Why did not they defend it?

2. The Coalition members were accused of corruption (!?).  The question on "400,000 manat" noted in the status some forces directed against the Coalition members, then trying to present themselves as defenders of their heroic. However, these "defenders" in their press  statements regarding the productivity of meetings, spoke quite insulting  things against the Coalition members, calling them "dead souls come to life." I do not have any thought to accuse members of the Coalition of corruption, and this cannot be. This approach is an attempt to manipulate the forces who want to create artificial tension in the Coalition. That is, in this issue there cannot be a talk about some members of the Coalition.  The talk is about the attitude of the authorities to the Coalition, on lobbying activities in the said structure, tactics of "warm" relationship to his supporters. If such an approach  approves itself is another question.

3. The election to the Coalition leadership were democratic and transparent,   but they were not fair (!?). Any election, being free, democratic and transparent, cannot be a  unfair. On the other hand, I feel like saying, how it happens that when you win the election, they are fair,  and when you do not win they are unfair? Are you a standard of fairness of the election? This approach is another invention of unsuccessful candidates, attempt change the opinion. However, this is unnecessary and unsuccessful attempt.

4. Experts, remaining "on the side" of the Coalition leadership. " The new Coalition Council elected economists Gubad Ibadoglu, Azer Mehdiyev, Sabit Bagirov, Ilham Huseynli, as well as lawyers and civil society activists  with an independent position. The question may arise: Why some people are concerned that the Council elected new faces. If they were not elected, then why do they are so jealous for the election of others? Why do people supporting the election of "experts" to the Council, did not speak about this in the previous election to the Board, as well as elections to the multiside group? Indeed, in these elections there were not respected experts Inglab Akhmedov, Ilham Shaban and others, to which they refer. Is this the true price of a specialist and fair position?

From all this it is clear that by unreasonable and ridiculous accusations they  try to cast a shadow  on the results of the  free democratic elections on 30 April  held in the atmosphere of  high productivity (of 150 NGO leaders participated 141.-  Ed.) of the General Meetings of the Coalition.

Note: Coalition member Fuad Gahrmanly  who is unlawfully under arrest, was slandered specifically for freedom of expression. Representatives of civil society of those arrested Fuad for writing to Facebook, threatened with the prosecutor's office, court  and the  arrest for the  status written by me. However, I have nothing to fear, unlike the authors of the threats, because I have not done  any illegal actions. However, threatening the civil society members by  colleague  is something else. This can be done by those for whom there is no such value as civil society. These people with support of the government  act in accordance with its interests. This is an example of strengthening control of the authorities over the Coalition.

Some do not act as heads of NGOs, as well as the prosecutors and public prosecutors. We understand that behind them is a broad back and great opportunities, but it is not indestructible, let no one forgets about it. People close to the government did not manage to win the electoral success of the Coalition leadership, and it worries them. They could not explain his defeat in the elections for those whom they are accountable. They are worried about it. They are trying to justify their defeat to the persons whom  they are accountable to, those who  lost "such a leading center of the opposition, as the National Council."

Several NGO leaders have never in  their life  demanded resignation of not only the minister or the chief executive, but also the chief housing department,  now demand the resignation of members of the Board elected by a majority vote of the members of the Coalition. Some are  trying to split the coalition, demanding the convocation of a new General Meeting, as well as the creation of a new structure.

Of course, if it is implemented,  it will be clear that behind this is power. However, if that happens, it would be a big headache for the government. I think that instead of dealing with this sort of meaningless affairs, the government and its representatives in the Coalition should take an interest in the restoration of the status of our country's membership in СEITI. Otherwise Azerbaijan can lose place in another authoritative structure.