A LETTER TO CUBAN FRIEND
VAHID GAZI
Dear Friend!
Now I recall all those interesting conversations with you on different subjects with warm memories and those make me think. Being under impression of these good memories I decided to respond your numerous questions addressed to me.
It was perhaps somehow complicated and you spend a lot of time in trying to locate my country on the map. Azerbaijan – Where is it? However I knew your country very well. In my childhood, whilst studying in school, it was spelled out as “Island of Freedom”. Soviet people’s intimate friend Castro was our cherished hero. In the sequel, I realized that at this Island of Freedom, you probably would find everything except the very liberty. We will come back to this later…
I recall, our conversations were based on mutual questions. Sometimes it was hard to respond, for instance: If your country is as you describe it: restricted elections, dependent courts, human rights violation, total monopoly in economy etc. then arise a question What is the difference between Cuba and Azerbaijan? Is that the life you have been struggling for years? Which example should we follow from the countries like yours? I agree with the complexity of the questions and its logical explanation
What are the similar and distinct features between my country and Cuba?
In this letter I will tell you a story about bloody struggle for liberty and democracy in my country. The success we got during these years, and sense of happiness generated by this victory. I will outline you a situation with the fails we did, and its subjective and objective prerequisites. You will witness, how a nation far away for thousand kilometers, with different culture, race and religion could have so similar destiny. I will write, you read and draw a parallel yourself.
Our history of democracy
Azerbaijan is a country somewhere between democratic Europe and authoritarian Asia, neither totally democratic nor authoritarian. (Scientists have not managed to denominate such states so far). First European values were brought to Azerbaijan in the end of 19th century, beginning of 20th century by Azerbaijanis educated in European universities. This period was entitled Renaissance time of Azerbaijan. The oil extracted in Baku in a short time turned a small Eastern district into big Western city. Along with increasing capitalism, the culture grew as well. Nation’s social, political and cultural elite was formed. After Russian empire collapse in 1917, this elite started the struggle for nation’s liberty and succeeded to found the republic on 28th of May of 1918. Our country was proud of the first republic, because it was the first democratic state in the Muslim World. Even the right to vote was given to females long before it was done in Europe. A multi-party parliament was formed, and the rights of national and religions minorities were protected.
Our first republic existed only 23 months, and in April of 1920 Bolshevik army occupied Azerbaijani territory and put an end to the republic. Following years were marked with unprecedented barbarity towards people who founded the republic and its supporters; they had been killed without any investigation, or had been frozen in Siberia. Bloody Bolshevik terror ended with life of million people all over the world, and there were thousands of Azerbaijanis among them.
Communism trace and heritage
As metastasis originated by cancer spreading from one part of the body to another, communism started to interfere in all spheres of life in the society.
It interfered private lives and even people’s consciousness. It was indifferent to any identity, traditions or customs. People, who lived the soviet time, consider it as the most tragic period of their history. Every nation suffered from it and Azerbaijan was among them. In total, 70 years of communism remained deep trace and unhealed wounds in Azerbaijani antique culture.
1. Azerbaijan has always been playing a role of the bridge between Turkey and the rest Central Asia countries (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan. Communists took 30 thousands square meters of our territory and transferred it to the possession of Armenia, this way eliminating the direct border with Turkey. (Territory of Azerbaijan in 1920 was 114 square meters, and in 1991 only 86 square meters.)
2. First time we were forced to change the alphabet. We switched to Latin alphabet in 1920 and then when Turkish people switched to this alphabet also, communists in 1939 induced us to use Cyrillic. In fact, we were isolated from the common Turkish literature and our links to Turkish civilization.
3. The language and the nation name were changed and in 1937 the denomination of Turk nation and Turk language were substituted with Azerbaijan nation and Azerbaijan language.
4. Thousand of mosques were closed, the religion was prohibited. The entire nation turned to be prisoners of conscience.
5. National holidays celebrated for thousand years were prohibited. Additionally, unfamiliar and artificial holidays were created.
6. The national intellectuals were exposed to repressions several times. People felt lack of educated and intelligent people.
Communist invaded spiritual values, people conscience and even dreams of thousand different nations. We thought it would be easy to end with communist ideology, but soon it became known, this 70 year regime struck not only Azerbaijan, but the entire world.
You barely could find another event such terrifying with its results as the Russian revolution in 1917. Revolutions happen; regimes are built and destroyed, but its consequences still declare itself for a long time.
My friend, film director Salayev said this: Intellectuals lived in 1930-40 were not soviet intellectual, they were “product” of tsar Russia. And now, people around us, especially in the government, are not representatives of independence period. They are a “product” of Brejnev’s 70-ies. To my mind, a person who lived less in communism period is healthier.
I agree with said opinions as well. We were living in illusions in the beginning of 1990 and we thought that the independence would bring the perspective future. Now, I rely so much on youth born in 1980, because this youth is free of communist ideology.
Communism was alien to Azerbaijanis. Founder of first republic Rasulzade told that in his letter to Stalin in 1922. “It is impossible to talk about autonomy seriously, which apparently was obtained by ex independent republics. Azerbaijan khanates under first tsar legates in Caucasus were more independent than actual Caucasian republics under soviet secretaries. I understood this during my two years in Moscow; eastern people despite everything will get their independence. You will not manage to get what you want. Eastern people will not live following communist norms and principles, but will live as they want to live”.
The anticipation of Azerbaijan democracy founder came true and Azerbaijan restored the independence in 1991.
New attempt for democracy
Communism end stipulated a new wave of democracy in all post soviet states. Democratic movements gained power in all countries, except Central Asia states. Azerbaijan entered new stage with serious problems and was forced to struggle for democracy and for his territory at the same time.
National movement started in 1988 succeeded in 1992 when national democrats governed the republic. New and inexperienced authority together with nation was face to face with new problems; protecting recently gained liberty, war with Armenia supported by Russian militarists which occupied Azerbaijani territory and fight against ambitious and mobilized communists who were aspired to get revenge and reacquire power. Concurrently, the democratic society had to be formed at that time.
To what extent is possible to create a democratic society in military conditions? Is it possible? 20 percents of occupied territory, 1 million refugees fled to cities and provinces of the country. Soviet agents remained in Russia were utterly mobilized and worked towards destroying the democratic government. On the front line Russia helped Armenia, and behind it supported ex communist to devour new democratic government.
Administrate the country was not the same as controlling people on the streets and squares. Immature democrats did not manage to bear the burden remained from communists. They merely could not accomplish it, because of lack of experience and no program prepared. They were not ready for the government and nation was not ready for the changes. Communism played his role; people not used to live liberated came back again to the standard of “tough hand”. Very soon as it happened in other countries Azerbaijani democrats lost the power and ex-communist came back to government in new masks after a short year leave and usurped the control once more.
You could have a question- and where was the society’s resistance?
First of all, it could be weird, but people wanted tough government. The society started to rise in the period from 1988 till 1993. People thought, that with its maximum civil activity, at times culminating in anarchy, it could resolve state’s every trouble.
Unfortunately, the public and the state met with failure one by one, especially in Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Deficiency and impossibility to create institutional mechanisms to regulate democratic processes in a short time, a society, being on the brink of collapse, as a rule, went from one extreme to the other. The public searched for a “tough hand, a person who could accept the entire responsibility for the existed problems. That leader was Heydar Aliyev, recalled in society as incredibly severe communist leader of Azerbaijan in seventies of last century.
Transition
Communism collapse stipulated formation of democratic societies in Central and Eastern countries. However, not all the countries disposed of the same resources and potential to grow. Azerbaijan entered the transition stage under ex communist regime.
It’s possible to divide countries of former USSR into various groups. A first group is Baltic countries: Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Said countries promptly and successfully got freed from soviet totalitarianism and its influence. Restitution reform (restitution of territory to the legal proprietor) and economical reforms have been conducted, parliament started to play main function and the democratization of government was carried out. Furthermore, given countries entered Council of Europe and became plenary member of NATO and European Union; this way the democratic transition period was finished.
Second group includes such states where transformation did not occur, one can say, no reforms took place in countries as: Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Belarus. Even comparing to soviet period, nowadays more severe authoritarian regimes rule the country. Economy is under state’s control, lack of political rights and incredible human rights violation is somewhat common for these countries.
Third and the major group includes Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. Extremely slow reforms held in abovementioned countries resulted in collapse of soviet economic system. However, in these countries the land was quite integrated in government. The most profitable economic spheres were taken by government oligarchs. In terms of political situation, those countries have more simulated democratic regimes.
The states at one start, developed special political systems during 10-15 years of transition. The situation of states in the first and the second group is more or less clear, but in case of Azerbaijan and the third group on whole, the situation remains indefinite and it will be still unclear in the near future.
Dear friend. You see, how many examples do you have from different countries?
Some of them are successful, some are not. Don’t ask me for the reason of this diversity. I just don’t know. But I know one thing for sure, Cuba will live these changes as well, and you should be ready for that lest to allow our errors happen again.
No life on the bridge
Of course, one can not live in the bridge. A bridge is to pass through it, but we can not come to the finish of this “transition bridge”. We are neither in the finish line, nor in the start line. Why this transition period has not been finished? Why don’t we have that state, which function effectively? Why this country decided to use oil dollars instead of normal tax collection system.
The transition period in European countries specifies the period of 10, 15, 20 years. In general, the transition period is finished in those countries, where remnants from the ex formation are eliminated and outdated institutes are substituted with relatively new ones. This demonstrates the end of transition and new rules of the game are defined.
It is very unfortunate that Azerbaijan did not experience all these. This primarily had to do with the matter of social stratum. No consent was reached within the force that was eager to see a change in the Azerbaijani communist nomenclature. In fact, the ascension of a united national movement model in 1990 had a negative effect on Azerbaijan. Therefore, the absence of consent within the power that was eager to see a change in the nomenclature and to advance to a certain degree liberal mottos would stagnate the upcoming processes. (There would be the time when this would be important for your country. It is the decisions based on the dialogue of the powers that provide a successful transition, not their conflict. My observation suggests that the last generation of the Cuban communists and the foreign Diaspora, especially in the US, can turn into real centres of power).
The Franco regime was changed in Spain in 1975 and an atmosphere for a dialogue was created. Along with a new division of authority, new reforms were carried out then. The totalitarian regime in Portugal lasted till 1986, but after a certain period of renewal processes the country transformed from the most backward countries into the most successful European economies. New institutes had been established in Azerbaijan during these years but nothing changed though. The decorative democracy was established instead.
Its reasons directly deal with the strata. There was not such a social group that would lead the society and show the way for it because the communists did not let such a social group to be created. In your case, the Diaspora can take on such a role. I suppose that the Cuban Diaspora in Miami will play an important role in Cuba's future. The specialists observing the anatomy of reforms in Poland explain the fast pace of the process by the following important factor. The country had more than ten million of its entrepreneurs living abroad. Their integration into Poland's reform and introduction of entrepreneurial culture to Poland favored the accelerated pace of the reforms. No opportunity was created for such entrepreneurial culture and social group in Azerbaijan. That is why we failed to establish a really strong state.
The power of the impact coming out of the depth of the lower social stratum is not sufficient in such immature societies like our. This is a result of absence of a social group propping it. Today the opposition has a large electorate too. Thirty, forty, fifty thousand people can gather on the ground. But in the society, these numbers cannot solve a matter. It is the social stratum that counts. Such a social group has not been formed in Azerbaijan yet.
The Reason For Failure. The Internal Factor
Foreign experts think that the strongest opposition in the post-Soviet republics was in Azerbaijan. In fact, the opposition won all of the elections that were held in the country. However, the opposition lacked either the power or the capability to enforce the actual victory. Why? There are many reasons. Here are just some examples.
The presidential elections held in 1998 were the first challenge for the opposition and the ruling elite. The vast majority of the opposition boycotted these elections. Only one of the prominent opposition leaders took part in them. A very difficult situation unfurled during the election campaign. On September, 12 the "boycotters" took their supporters to the central streets of the capital. The clashes between the opposition supporters and the police lasted several hours. The police finally could not overpower the opposition supporters. The President had to make concessions. The authorities democratized the election campaign considerably. For the first time since 1993 the opposition was allowed to stage mass protests in the centre of the city. The head of the state personally addressed his opponents to join the presidential race. However, "the Four" was determined to stick to their boycott. In fact, E. Mammadov was adrift the only opposition candidate.
This was a big odd. But this is not the end. “In-house entrepreneurs” who were dissatisfied with the absence of economic democracy under H. Aliyev flopped over to E. Mammadov. The only participating opposition candidate received considerable financial support and carried out a very strong election campaign. Thus, "the boycotters" and "the strikebreaker" achieved a positive result with their concerted actions. For the first time in his political career H. Aliyev was facing a threat of being defeated at the elections. Almost several weeks before the election day the President “got to the world” and literally followed the steps of the opposition candidate. It was late though. These elections were a failure for the head of the state. He could not enlist the support of the two thirds of the electorate to be elected president in the first round. All international organizations which monitored the elections stated the need for the second round.
However, the opposition lacked wisdom. Completely united, it demanded the new elections for all the potential candidates to take part n them. If H. Aliyev had agreed to hold the second round under the international pressure, it would have been a big victory for the opposition. But making unacceptable and unreasonable conditions, the opposition lost the international support.
At the same time the elections had serious political consequences. The election campaign had undermined H. Aliyev’s health. Immediately after the elections he got seriously ill. And the opposition began counting down to the X hour, when he was supposed to die.
But the authorities also made conclusions from the botched election campaign. First of all, all measures were taken to cut the internal financial sources of the opposition. There began the “extermination” of the “in-house” entrepreneurs. So, the last remnants of the economic freedom were put to an end. As a result, Azerbaijan became a vivid example of "bureaucratic capitalism". Today there is not even a single legal millionaire in Azerbaijan.
Secondly, understanding that in such conditions unity is the opposition's strength, say, active measures were taken to create a rift in it. And due to its silliness the opposition fell for the bait. Many opposition leaders were sure that when X hour came the future of the ruling political elite would be resolved itself. That is why, in fact, they stopped the fight against the ruling elite and directed their efforts on undermining the positions of their rivals in the oppositional camp. The sudden demise of the National Front leader, Abulfaz Elchibey forced even a greater rift among the opposition. Many opposition leaders began to contest for the role of the spiritual successor to the ex-president and leader of the national liberation movement. Thus, the opposition was roiled by internal differences and completely decentralized in the wake of the 2000 parliamentary elections. This resulted in the inability to organize effective post-election resistance. By falsification, the authorities left overboard the leading parties in the country, Musavat and NIPA (National Independent Party of Azerbaijan). The international organizations missions that monitored the elections said the two parties got over a six-percent barrier with considerable breakaway.
The Second Example. In October 2003 the nationwide elections - this time the presidential ones were held. It was the first time since 1993 when H. Aliyev did not directly participate. The authorities said that he was undergoing treatment in Cleveland, US at that time and personally withdrew from the elections in favor of his son. The oppositions suggest that by that time the President had died in Turkey still in July, 2003. Thus, the opposition challenges the constitutionality of all ensuing orders including I. Aliyev’s appointment as prime minister which were promulgated on behalf of the legacy president. However, for justice' sake it should be noted, that even though, opposition neither in that time, nor nowadays could not procure irrefutable evidences of H. Aliyev’s death in summer 2003.
At first glance, in October 2003 a unique opportunity sprang up in Azerbaijan to continue a series of “velvet-and-orange” revolutions that started in Serbia because the ruling elite was heading for the elections without its perennial leader. However, not everything is so easy…
Firstly, after all the opposition failed to be united, yet the talks on the issue under the auspices of the US Institute of National Democracy began long ago before the presidential elections, back in the summer of 2002. In private conversations some US diplomats admitted that the battle was raging in the Washington lobbies between the proponents of sustaining stability at any cost and those of the radical democratic changes in Azerbaijan. The proponents of stability also advanced an argument that the local opposition can not be united as compared to the Serbian one.
The then US ambassador to Azerbaijan, Reno Harnish made a statement that the absence of a unified candidate would seriously influence its election results. This statement by R. Harnish was equal to a verdict.
Secondly, in contrast with Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine, the opposition in Azerbaijan possessed neither the financial, nor the administrative or serious information resources. Suffice it to remind that one of the Georgian opposition leaders was the speaker of the parliament and the other one - the mayor of Tbilisi. Besides, some big businessmen openly financed it. And finally, the opposition availed itself of a popular TV company, Rustavi.
In the Ukraine, the opposition controlled almost half of the country, including the capital. It had no deficit in finance at all. It enlisted the West’s full support in all rounds of the election struggle. None of the alike was seen in Azerbaijan.
Thirdly, the authorities again fully capitalized on the parochial factor. This time the main candidate from the opposition was I. Gambar. The chairman of Musavat party indeed boasted the highest rating among the opposition leaders. Yet, he was the worst enemy for the main social base of the ruling elite. Thus, I. Gambar's candidacy did not bring about a rift in the ruling elite. On the contrary, this even unified it around I. Aliyev. Even those who were against the son of their perennial leader took to his side.
Fourthly, in the wake of the elections I. Aliyev held active talks with the West, primarily with the USA. Afterwards, the Americans reiterated that I. Aliyev took strict obligations to take into account the US interests as well as to introduce several political and economic reforms. That is, the West gave preference to the evolutional development rather than the revolutionary one in Azerbaijan.
In fact, these very factors conduced to the complete failure of the second attempt to make "an orange revolution” in Azerbaijan after the parliamentary elections in 2005.
After these two examples one can come to the following conclusion. For many years we have believed that the West and the US in particular care most of all for the presence of democracy and they will defend the democrats even if they are mistaken. The opposition made a mistake when they discarded the internal factors by idealizing the strength of the USA and the importance of the foreign factor. They considered the US ambassador to be like the then Tsarist Russia's governor in the country. They accounted all their actions and statements to the ambassadors’ reaction. But the truth is that it is the people who must solve everything and nobody but the people will come from abroad to establish democracy.
The democratic opposition could not get rid of the “street opposition” label. It could not attract new and talented youth as well as did not work on developing its own knowledge and skills. Ostensibly English-speaking political experts who trugded their way into it sought their own interests. And they betrayed them at the very first chance.
The result is that almost all skillful talents work at foreign companies. Naturally, it is better than rotting in the Siberian camps in 1930s, though all these people are left outside the social life.
The Reason For Failure. The External Factor
External factors also had negative influence on the establishment of democracy in Azerbaijan. First of all, this relates to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict which lasts more than 15 years and, strangely enough, the operation of the Western oil companies in the country.
Firstly, during the last decade the Garabagh conflict has been a subject of bargaining between the Azerbaijani authorities and the Western countries, the US in particular. The present political elite has always used the possible settlement of the conflict as one of the main aces in its hands to gain the foreign political support from the US for maintaining its own rule. First of all, the Azerbaijani opposition has always stuck to more hard-line positions than the current ruling elite. Secondly, almost before any nationwide elections the ruling regime had promised the West, the USA in particular, that if its rule were maintained it would make serious concessions and sign a peace agreement with Armenia.
Shortly before the parliamentary elections in 1995 the then US Secretary of State Deputy, Strobe Talbot during the talks with the leaders of the Azerbaijani opposition made an open statement that Washington was ready to support their aspirations for power if they met two requirements. The first one was that the opposition should get united, while the second one that it should soften its positions on the Garabagh settlement. No agreement was reached on either of these points.
It should be always taken into account that the West, including the US started the “exploration” of Azerbaijan by means of large oil companies. Yet, as a rule, the world-famous large oil companies in contrast with financial and investment ones are not interested in the establishment of democracy in the countries where they operate. The matter is that "agreement" with the government is the only important thing for the oil companies, whereas the domestic financial and investment environment and the level of economic democracy do not influence their operational results at all. However, the establishment of democracy leads to strengthening of public monitoring institutions over the operation of oil companies and their revenues as well as expenditure which is not less important as the expenditure related to the Contract of the Century grew by many times. That is why “working with and reporting to” one person is better. Suffice it to remind that BP, which is the operator of the Contract of the Century, is considered the most corrupted oil companies in the world. It was BP that the Turkish mass media citing the reliable sources accused of making a coup d’état in Azerbaijan in 1993. Interestingly enough, BP became the operator of the Contract of the Century right after this change of power.
Thus, the western oil companies have always been interested in lobbying of neither the present ruling elite’s nor Azerbaijan’s interests as a state. It was them who actively brainwashed the West with a thesis of the necessity to maintain the stability in Azerbaijan at any cost, with the present ruling elite being its guarantor.
And now I have a question for you
I understand that democracy is a long and difficult way to go, but I see some countries as ours, which could not create the desirable state about 15 years ago. I compare this with counties more successful in transition. I would like to go back to the question you asked me in the beginning: What is the difference between Cuba and Azerbaijan?
We are able to extend this list. There were none of these rights 15 years ago and I think that we could use our democracy in a more efficient way. My struggle is democracy’s improvement.
And now answer my question, my dear friend.
Don’t these right worth to struggle for them for years?
VAHID GAZI
Dear Friend!
Now I recall all those interesting conversations with you on different subjects with warm memories and those make me think. Being under impression of these good memories I decided to respond your numerous questions addressed to me.
It was perhaps somehow complicated and you spend a lot of time in trying to locate my country on the map. Azerbaijan – Where is it? However I knew your country very well. In my childhood, whilst studying in school, it was spelled out as “Island of Freedom”. Soviet people’s intimate friend Castro was our cherished hero. In the sequel, I realized that at this Island of Freedom, you probably would find everything except the very liberty. We will come back to this later…
I recall, our conversations were based on mutual questions. Sometimes it was hard to respond, for instance: If your country is as you describe it: restricted elections, dependent courts, human rights violation, total monopoly in economy etc. then arise a question What is the difference between Cuba and Azerbaijan? Is that the life you have been struggling for years? Which example should we follow from the countries like yours? I agree with the complexity of the questions and its logical explanation
What are the similar and distinct features between my country and Cuba?
In this letter I will tell you a story about bloody struggle for liberty and democracy in my country. The success we got during these years, and sense of happiness generated by this victory. I will outline you a situation with the fails we did, and its subjective and objective prerequisites. You will witness, how a nation far away for thousand kilometers, with different culture, race and religion could have so similar destiny. I will write, you read and draw a parallel yourself.
Our history of democracy
Azerbaijan is a country somewhere between democratic Europe and authoritarian Asia, neither totally democratic nor authoritarian. (Scientists have not managed to denominate such states so far). First European values were brought to Azerbaijan in the end of 19th century, beginning of 20th century by Azerbaijanis educated in European universities. This period was entitled Renaissance time of Azerbaijan. The oil extracted in Baku in a short time turned a small Eastern district into big Western city. Along with increasing capitalism, the culture grew as well. Nation’s social, political and cultural elite was formed. After Russian empire collapse in 1917, this elite started the struggle for nation’s liberty and succeeded to found the republic on 28th of May of 1918. Our country was proud of the first republic, because it was the first democratic state in the Muslim World. Even the right to vote was given to females long before it was done in Europe. A multi-party parliament was formed, and the rights of national and religions minorities were protected.
Our first republic existed only 23 months, and in April of 1920 Bolshevik army occupied Azerbaijani territory and put an end to the republic. Following years were marked with unprecedented barbarity towards people who founded the republic and its supporters; they had been killed without any investigation, or had been frozen in Siberia. Bloody Bolshevik terror ended with life of million people all over the world, and there were thousands of Azerbaijanis among them.
Communism trace and heritage
As metastasis originated by cancer spreading from one part of the body to another, communism started to interfere in all spheres of life in the society.
It interfered private lives and even people’s consciousness. It was indifferent to any identity, traditions or customs. People, who lived the soviet time, consider it as the most tragic period of their history. Every nation suffered from it and Azerbaijan was among them. In total, 70 years of communism remained deep trace and unhealed wounds in Azerbaijani antique culture.
1. Azerbaijan has always been playing a role of the bridge between Turkey and the rest Central Asia countries (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan. Communists took 30 thousands square meters of our territory and transferred it to the possession of Armenia, this way eliminating the direct border with Turkey. (Territory of Azerbaijan in 1920 was 114 square meters, and in 1991 only 86 square meters.)
2. First time we were forced to change the alphabet. We switched to Latin alphabet in 1920 and then when Turkish people switched to this alphabet also, communists in 1939 induced us to use Cyrillic. In fact, we were isolated from the common Turkish literature and our links to Turkish civilization.
3. The language and the nation name were changed and in 1937 the denomination of Turk nation and Turk language were substituted with Azerbaijan nation and Azerbaijan language.
4. Thousand of mosques were closed, the religion was prohibited. The entire nation turned to be prisoners of conscience.
5. National holidays celebrated for thousand years were prohibited. Additionally, unfamiliar and artificial holidays were created.
6. The national intellectuals were exposed to repressions several times. People felt lack of educated and intelligent people.
Communist invaded spiritual values, people conscience and even dreams of thousand different nations. We thought it would be easy to end with communist ideology, but soon it became known, this 70 year regime struck not only Azerbaijan, but the entire world.
You barely could find another event such terrifying with its results as the Russian revolution in 1917. Revolutions happen; regimes are built and destroyed, but its consequences still declare itself for a long time.
My friend, film director Salayev said this: Intellectuals lived in 1930-40 were not soviet intellectual, they were “product” of tsar Russia. And now, people around us, especially in the government, are not representatives of independence period. They are a “product” of Brejnev’s 70-ies. To my mind, a person who lived less in communism period is healthier.
I agree with said opinions as well. We were living in illusions in the beginning of 1990 and we thought that the independence would bring the perspective future. Now, I rely so much on youth born in 1980, because this youth is free of communist ideology.
Communism was alien to Azerbaijanis. Founder of first republic Rasulzade told that in his letter to Stalin in 1922. “It is impossible to talk about autonomy seriously, which apparently was obtained by ex independent republics. Azerbaijan khanates under first tsar legates in Caucasus were more independent than actual Caucasian republics under soviet secretaries. I understood this during my two years in Moscow; eastern people despite everything will get their independence. You will not manage to get what you want. Eastern people will not live following communist norms and principles, but will live as they want to live”.
The anticipation of Azerbaijan democracy founder came true and Azerbaijan restored the independence in 1991.
New attempt for democracy
Communism end stipulated a new wave of democracy in all post soviet states. Democratic movements gained power in all countries, except Central Asia states. Azerbaijan entered new stage with serious problems and was forced to struggle for democracy and for his territory at the same time.
National movement started in 1988 succeeded in 1992 when national democrats governed the republic. New and inexperienced authority together with nation was face to face with new problems; protecting recently gained liberty, war with Armenia supported by Russian militarists which occupied Azerbaijani territory and fight against ambitious and mobilized communists who were aspired to get revenge and reacquire power. Concurrently, the democratic society had to be formed at that time.
To what extent is possible to create a democratic society in military conditions? Is it possible? 20 percents of occupied territory, 1 million refugees fled to cities and provinces of the country. Soviet agents remained in Russia were utterly mobilized and worked towards destroying the democratic government. On the front line Russia helped Armenia, and behind it supported ex communist to devour new democratic government.
Administrate the country was not the same as controlling people on the streets and squares. Immature democrats did not manage to bear the burden remained from communists. They merely could not accomplish it, because of lack of experience and no program prepared. They were not ready for the government and nation was not ready for the changes. Communism played his role; people not used to live liberated came back again to the standard of “tough hand”. Very soon as it happened in other countries Azerbaijani democrats lost the power and ex-communist came back to government in new masks after a short year leave and usurped the control once more.
You could have a question- and where was the society’s resistance?
First of all, it could be weird, but people wanted tough government. The society started to rise in the period from 1988 till 1993. People thought, that with its maximum civil activity, at times culminating in anarchy, it could resolve state’s every trouble.
Unfortunately, the public and the state met with failure one by one, especially in Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Deficiency and impossibility to create institutional mechanisms to regulate democratic processes in a short time, a society, being on the brink of collapse, as a rule, went from one extreme to the other. The public searched for a “tough hand, a person who could accept the entire responsibility for the existed problems. That leader was Heydar Aliyev, recalled in society as incredibly severe communist leader of Azerbaijan in seventies of last century.
Transition
Communism collapse stipulated formation of democratic societies in Central and Eastern countries. However, not all the countries disposed of the same resources and potential to grow. Azerbaijan entered the transition stage under ex communist regime.
It’s possible to divide countries of former USSR into various groups. A first group is Baltic countries: Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Said countries promptly and successfully got freed from soviet totalitarianism and its influence. Restitution reform (restitution of territory to the legal proprietor) and economical reforms have been conducted, parliament started to play main function and the democratization of government was carried out. Furthermore, given countries entered Council of Europe and became plenary member of NATO and European Union; this way the democratic transition period was finished.
Second group includes such states where transformation did not occur, one can say, no reforms took place in countries as: Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Belarus. Even comparing to soviet period, nowadays more severe authoritarian regimes rule the country. Economy is under state’s control, lack of political rights and incredible human rights violation is somewhat common for these countries.
Third and the major group includes Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. Extremely slow reforms held in abovementioned countries resulted in collapse of soviet economic system. However, in these countries the land was quite integrated in government. The most profitable economic spheres were taken by government oligarchs. In terms of political situation, those countries have more simulated democratic regimes.
The states at one start, developed special political systems during 10-15 years of transition. The situation of states in the first and the second group is more or less clear, but in case of Azerbaijan and the third group on whole, the situation remains indefinite and it will be still unclear in the near future.
Dear friend. You see, how many examples do you have from different countries?
Some of them are successful, some are not. Don’t ask me for the reason of this diversity. I just don’t know. But I know one thing for sure, Cuba will live these changes as well, and you should be ready for that lest to allow our errors happen again.
No life on the bridge
Of course, one can not live in the bridge. A bridge is to pass through it, but we can not come to the finish of this “transition bridge”. We are neither in the finish line, nor in the start line. Why this transition period has not been finished? Why don’t we have that state, which function effectively? Why this country decided to use oil dollars instead of normal tax collection system.
The transition period in European countries specifies the period of 10, 15, 20 years. In general, the transition period is finished in those countries, where remnants from the ex formation are eliminated and outdated institutes are substituted with relatively new ones. This demonstrates the end of transition and new rules of the game are defined.
It is very unfortunate that Azerbaijan did not experience all these. This primarily had to do with the matter of social stratum. No consent was reached within the force that was eager to see a change in the Azerbaijani communist nomenclature. In fact, the ascension of a united national movement model in 1990 had a negative effect on Azerbaijan. Therefore, the absence of consent within the power that was eager to see a change in the nomenclature and to advance to a certain degree liberal mottos would stagnate the upcoming processes. (There would be the time when this would be important for your country. It is the decisions based on the dialogue of the powers that provide a successful transition, not their conflict. My observation suggests that the last generation of the Cuban communists and the foreign Diaspora, especially in the US, can turn into real centres of power).
The Franco regime was changed in Spain in 1975 and an atmosphere for a dialogue was created. Along with a new division of authority, new reforms were carried out then. The totalitarian regime in Portugal lasted till 1986, but after a certain period of renewal processes the country transformed from the most backward countries into the most successful European economies. New institutes had been established in Azerbaijan during these years but nothing changed though. The decorative democracy was established instead.
Its reasons directly deal with the strata. There was not such a social group that would lead the society and show the way for it because the communists did not let such a social group to be created. In your case, the Diaspora can take on such a role. I suppose that the Cuban Diaspora in Miami will play an important role in Cuba's future. The specialists observing the anatomy of reforms in Poland explain the fast pace of the process by the following important factor. The country had more than ten million of its entrepreneurs living abroad. Their integration into Poland's reform and introduction of entrepreneurial culture to Poland favored the accelerated pace of the reforms. No opportunity was created for such entrepreneurial culture and social group in Azerbaijan. That is why we failed to establish a really strong state.
The power of the impact coming out of the depth of the lower social stratum is not sufficient in such immature societies like our. This is a result of absence of a social group propping it. Today the opposition has a large electorate too. Thirty, forty, fifty thousand people can gather on the ground. But in the society, these numbers cannot solve a matter. It is the social stratum that counts. Such a social group has not been formed in Azerbaijan yet.
The Reason For Failure. The Internal Factor
Foreign experts think that the strongest opposition in the post-Soviet republics was in Azerbaijan. In fact, the opposition won all of the elections that were held in the country. However, the opposition lacked either the power or the capability to enforce the actual victory. Why? There are many reasons. Here are just some examples.
The presidential elections held in 1998 were the first challenge for the opposition and the ruling elite. The vast majority of the opposition boycotted these elections. Only one of the prominent opposition leaders took part in them. A very difficult situation unfurled during the election campaign. On September, 12 the "boycotters" took their supporters to the central streets of the capital. The clashes between the opposition supporters and the police lasted several hours. The police finally could not overpower the opposition supporters. The President had to make concessions. The authorities democratized the election campaign considerably. For the first time since 1993 the opposition was allowed to stage mass protests in the centre of the city. The head of the state personally addressed his opponents to join the presidential race. However, "the Four" was determined to stick to their boycott. In fact, E. Mammadov was adrift the only opposition candidate.
This was a big odd. But this is not the end. “In-house entrepreneurs” who were dissatisfied with the absence of economic democracy under H. Aliyev flopped over to E. Mammadov. The only participating opposition candidate received considerable financial support and carried out a very strong election campaign. Thus, "the boycotters" and "the strikebreaker" achieved a positive result with their concerted actions. For the first time in his political career H. Aliyev was facing a threat of being defeated at the elections. Almost several weeks before the election day the President “got to the world” and literally followed the steps of the opposition candidate. It was late though. These elections were a failure for the head of the state. He could not enlist the support of the two thirds of the electorate to be elected president in the first round. All international organizations which monitored the elections stated the need for the second round.
However, the opposition lacked wisdom. Completely united, it demanded the new elections for all the potential candidates to take part n them. If H. Aliyev had agreed to hold the second round under the international pressure, it would have been a big victory for the opposition. But making unacceptable and unreasonable conditions, the opposition lost the international support.
At the same time the elections had serious political consequences. The election campaign had undermined H. Aliyev’s health. Immediately after the elections he got seriously ill. And the opposition began counting down to the X hour, when he was supposed to die.
But the authorities also made conclusions from the botched election campaign. First of all, all measures were taken to cut the internal financial sources of the opposition. There began the “extermination” of the “in-house” entrepreneurs. So, the last remnants of the economic freedom were put to an end. As a result, Azerbaijan became a vivid example of "bureaucratic capitalism". Today there is not even a single legal millionaire in Azerbaijan.
Secondly, understanding that in such conditions unity is the opposition's strength, say, active measures were taken to create a rift in it. And due to its silliness the opposition fell for the bait. Many opposition leaders were sure that when X hour came the future of the ruling political elite would be resolved itself. That is why, in fact, they stopped the fight against the ruling elite and directed their efforts on undermining the positions of their rivals in the oppositional camp. The sudden demise of the National Front leader, Abulfaz Elchibey forced even a greater rift among the opposition. Many opposition leaders began to contest for the role of the spiritual successor to the ex-president and leader of the national liberation movement. Thus, the opposition was roiled by internal differences and completely decentralized in the wake of the 2000 parliamentary elections. This resulted in the inability to organize effective post-election resistance. By falsification, the authorities left overboard the leading parties in the country, Musavat and NIPA (National Independent Party of Azerbaijan). The international organizations missions that monitored the elections said the two parties got over a six-percent barrier with considerable breakaway.
The Second Example. In October 2003 the nationwide elections - this time the presidential ones were held. It was the first time since 1993 when H. Aliyev did not directly participate. The authorities said that he was undergoing treatment in Cleveland, US at that time and personally withdrew from the elections in favor of his son. The oppositions suggest that by that time the President had died in Turkey still in July, 2003. Thus, the opposition challenges the constitutionality of all ensuing orders including I. Aliyev’s appointment as prime minister which were promulgated on behalf of the legacy president. However, for justice' sake it should be noted, that even though, opposition neither in that time, nor nowadays could not procure irrefutable evidences of H. Aliyev’s death in summer 2003.
At first glance, in October 2003 a unique opportunity sprang up in Azerbaijan to continue a series of “velvet-and-orange” revolutions that started in Serbia because the ruling elite was heading for the elections without its perennial leader. However, not everything is so easy…
Firstly, after all the opposition failed to be united, yet the talks on the issue under the auspices of the US Institute of National Democracy began long ago before the presidential elections, back in the summer of 2002. In private conversations some US diplomats admitted that the battle was raging in the Washington lobbies between the proponents of sustaining stability at any cost and those of the radical democratic changes in Azerbaijan. The proponents of stability also advanced an argument that the local opposition can not be united as compared to the Serbian one.
The then US ambassador to Azerbaijan, Reno Harnish made a statement that the absence of a unified candidate would seriously influence its election results. This statement by R. Harnish was equal to a verdict.
Secondly, in contrast with Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine, the opposition in Azerbaijan possessed neither the financial, nor the administrative or serious information resources. Suffice it to remind that one of the Georgian opposition leaders was the speaker of the parliament and the other one - the mayor of Tbilisi. Besides, some big businessmen openly financed it. And finally, the opposition availed itself of a popular TV company, Rustavi.
In the Ukraine, the opposition controlled almost half of the country, including the capital. It had no deficit in finance at all. It enlisted the West’s full support in all rounds of the election struggle. None of the alike was seen in Azerbaijan.
Thirdly, the authorities again fully capitalized on the parochial factor. This time the main candidate from the opposition was I. Gambar. The chairman of Musavat party indeed boasted the highest rating among the opposition leaders. Yet, he was the worst enemy for the main social base of the ruling elite. Thus, I. Gambar's candidacy did not bring about a rift in the ruling elite. On the contrary, this even unified it around I. Aliyev. Even those who were against the son of their perennial leader took to his side.
Fourthly, in the wake of the elections I. Aliyev held active talks with the West, primarily with the USA. Afterwards, the Americans reiterated that I. Aliyev took strict obligations to take into account the US interests as well as to introduce several political and economic reforms. That is, the West gave preference to the evolutional development rather than the revolutionary one in Azerbaijan.
In fact, these very factors conduced to the complete failure of the second attempt to make "an orange revolution” in Azerbaijan after the parliamentary elections in 2005.
After these two examples one can come to the following conclusion. For many years we have believed that the West and the US in particular care most of all for the presence of democracy and they will defend the democrats even if they are mistaken. The opposition made a mistake when they discarded the internal factors by idealizing the strength of the USA and the importance of the foreign factor. They considered the US ambassador to be like the then Tsarist Russia's governor in the country. They accounted all their actions and statements to the ambassadors’ reaction. But the truth is that it is the people who must solve everything and nobody but the people will come from abroad to establish democracy.
The democratic opposition could not get rid of the “street opposition” label. It could not attract new and talented youth as well as did not work on developing its own knowledge and skills. Ostensibly English-speaking political experts who trugded their way into it sought their own interests. And they betrayed them at the very first chance.
The result is that almost all skillful talents work at foreign companies. Naturally, it is better than rotting in the Siberian camps in 1930s, though all these people are left outside the social life.
The Reason For Failure. The External Factor
External factors also had negative influence on the establishment of democracy in Azerbaijan. First of all, this relates to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict which lasts more than 15 years and, strangely enough, the operation of the Western oil companies in the country.
Firstly, during the last decade the Garabagh conflict has been a subject of bargaining between the Azerbaijani authorities and the Western countries, the US in particular. The present political elite has always used the possible settlement of the conflict as one of the main aces in its hands to gain the foreign political support from the US for maintaining its own rule. First of all, the Azerbaijani opposition has always stuck to more hard-line positions than the current ruling elite. Secondly, almost before any nationwide elections the ruling regime had promised the West, the USA in particular, that if its rule were maintained it would make serious concessions and sign a peace agreement with Armenia.
Shortly before the parliamentary elections in 1995 the then US Secretary of State Deputy, Strobe Talbot during the talks with the leaders of the Azerbaijani opposition made an open statement that Washington was ready to support their aspirations for power if they met two requirements. The first one was that the opposition should get united, while the second one that it should soften its positions on the Garabagh settlement. No agreement was reached on either of these points.
It should be always taken into account that the West, including the US started the “exploration” of Azerbaijan by means of large oil companies. Yet, as a rule, the world-famous large oil companies in contrast with financial and investment ones are not interested in the establishment of democracy in the countries where they operate. The matter is that "agreement" with the government is the only important thing for the oil companies, whereas the domestic financial and investment environment and the level of economic democracy do not influence their operational results at all. However, the establishment of democracy leads to strengthening of public monitoring institutions over the operation of oil companies and their revenues as well as expenditure which is not less important as the expenditure related to the Contract of the Century grew by many times. That is why “working with and reporting to” one person is better. Suffice it to remind that BP, which is the operator of the Contract of the Century, is considered the most corrupted oil companies in the world. It was BP that the Turkish mass media citing the reliable sources accused of making a coup d’état in Azerbaijan in 1993. Interestingly enough, BP became the operator of the Contract of the Century right after this change of power.
Thus, the western oil companies have always been interested in lobbying of neither the present ruling elite’s nor Azerbaijan’s interests as a state. It was them who actively brainwashed the West with a thesis of the necessity to maintain the stability in Azerbaijan at any cost, with the present ruling elite being its guarantor.
And now I have a question for you
I understand that democracy is a long and difficult way to go, but I see some countries as ours, which could not create the desirable state about 15 years ago. I compare this with counties more successful in transition. I would like to go back to the question you asked me in the beginning: What is the difference between Cuba and Azerbaijan?
1. Free circulation. I can acquire a passport and go anywhere in the world, including Cuba, but I can not invite you to my country, because your government does no allow it. I can live in any city of my country without any special document or registration.
2. Property rights. I can be an owner of, be it, apartment, land etc. I can buy, sell or present it to anyone anytime.
3. Communication. I can call, send e-mail or fax any place. I can use Internet, at home, office or in Internet café.
4. Free market I can create and run my business.
5. Right of choice. I have a right to 1) choose a school for my kids 2) choose any hospital for proper treatment in any place of the world 3) read any literature I want 4) watch any TV channel and etc.
6. Right to protest my government’s decision (partially)
7. Found and run a political party
8. Publish a newspaper without censorship
2. Property rights. I can be an owner of, be it, apartment, land etc. I can buy, sell or present it to anyone anytime.
3. Communication. I can call, send e-mail or fax any place. I can use Internet, at home, office or in Internet café.
4. Free market I can create and run my business.
5. Right of choice. I have a right to 1) choose a school for my kids 2) choose any hospital for proper treatment in any place of the world 3) read any literature I want 4) watch any TV channel and etc.
6. Right to protest my government’s decision (partially)
7. Found and run a political party
8. Publish a newspaper without censorship
We are able to extend this list. There were none of these rights 15 years ago and I think that we could use our democracy in a more efficient way. My struggle is democracy’s improvement.
And now answer my question, my dear friend.
Don’t these right worth to struggle for them for years?
