Monday commentary: Can absolute power become “political will”?

How, and for what purpose, will the newly empowered leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan use their now nearly absolute powers? And more specifically how will they do so in the context of the Karabakh conflict and conflict resolution process, asks Dennis Sammut in this commentary.

This week marks a watershed moment in the modern political history of the South Caucasus. Almost at the same moment, two men, one in Armenia and one in Azerbaijan, assume in their countries more power than any other local leader could muster in the history of the region in modern times. The implications of this on the countries themselves, on the region, and on the dangerous and unresolved conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, are still unclear.

In Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev will shortly start his fourth term of office following presidential elections last week. This time his term is extended from five to seven years. Constitutional changes approved last year also give him additional power over parliament. Recently he also appointed his wife, Mehraban Aliyeva, to the newly created post of 1st vice president.

In Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan will this week be appointed by parliament as prime minister of Armenia following a decision of the governing Republican Party, of which he is Chairman, to propose him for the post. He served as president from 2008 until last week, when his second term expired. Prior to that he pushed through constitutional changes which meant that as from last week the office of president has been stripped of all powers, and these have now been added to those of the prime minister.  

There are no legal or constitutional impediments now stopping either man from remaining in power until they die, as long as they are re-elected or re-appointed. The two-term restriction was removed for the presidency in Azerbaijan some years back, and it never existed in the case of the prime minister in Armenia. On top of this, weak parliaments, compliant judiciaries and tamed media, means that there are hardly any of the tools for checks and balances. Ever since mediaeval times there have not been local leaders in the South Caucasus who held so much personal power as Serzj Sargsyan holds in Armenia, and Ilham Aliyev holds in Azerbaijan, at the moment.

Some are concerned. Demonstrators took to the streets of Yerevan over the weekend as part of a "Stop Serzh" campaign. In Baku an opposition rally called for the cancellation of the election results. Both are unlikely to succeed. The authorities in Armenia and Azerbaijan are well entrenched.

For many the situation is worrisome. For others, it is simply a reflection of the political will of the people, and foreigners should not interfere. I will leave discussion of this for another day. Presently however I would like to raise the question of how, and for what purpose, will the newly empowered leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan use their nearly absolute powers, and more specifically how will they do so in the context of the Karabakh conflict and conflict resolution process?

A tough line on Karabakh has been part of the narrative of both Aliyev and Sargsyan as they navigated their way to the current peak of political power. Can they now use this power to broker a deal on Karabakh?

Often, the view of the international community - from the statements of the co-Chair of the Minsk process, to resolutions of international organisations, and the mutterings of analysts and think tanks - repeats ad nauseam that what has been lacking so far in the efforts to resolve the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is the political will of the leaders. This assumption is not quite accurate. For on and off this will has been there. It is more precise to say that what was lacking was the political strength. Compromise on Karabakh was considered too risky, requiring a political strength that neither leader has felt that he had in the past.

Do they consider that they have that political strength now that they have accumulated unmatchable political power? Can Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan muster enough of their new political power to push a breakthrough in the negotiations? I think they will, at least try. Whether they succeed will depend on two factors. Internally it could be that this vision of political strength is illusionary, and that the internal dynamics within the ruling elites may be more complicated than meets the eye. In that case the leaders will be cautious. They will do what they have done in the past, namely dig in, both physically and metaphorically.

The second factor is Russia. Russia supports a deal on Karabakh, as long as it is a Russian deal. It has hardly allowed anyone else a chance to contribute to a solution, acting very much as the primus inter pares in the Minsk process.

But what if Armenia and Azerbaijan decide not to wait for Russia, and pull a surprise? For Moscow that may be very awkward indeed. President Aliyev and President Sargsyan have never been strong enough to do this. Until now!

There remains the outside chance that either or both of the two presidents may see their new power as a mandate for adventurism. In the future perhaps, but not now.

The remaining months of 2018 may be hugely important for the resolution of the Karabakh conflict, and as a consequence, for the entire South Caucasus region. The region is not currently at the top of the international agenda since there are too many other pressing issues elsewhere. Yet this may be the proverbial window of opportunity that president Aliyev and president Sargsyan need, and they may decide to seize the moment to settle the Karabakh problem, and move their countries and the region to a better place.

source: Dennis Sammut is the Director of LINKS (Dialogue, Analysis and Research) His Monday Commentary is published weekly on commonspace.eu. 

 

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

 

 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Uzbekistan strengthens its relations with China and US

Uzbekistan strengthens its relations with China and US

In recent days, Uzbekistan welcomed the Chinese and American governments in quick succession. During Chinese Premier Li Qiang’s visit on 17-18 October, the Uzbek presidential administration said that joint projects backed by firm agreements had reached nearly $60 billion. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio then arrived in Samarkand for C5+1 talks, accompanied at the time by American business leaders seeking contracts, particularly in critical minerals. During the visit, Uzbekistan announced 54 agreements covering trade, investment, and technology. The agreements are said to be worth a total of $12 billion, according to Uzbekistan’s Ministry of Investment, Industry and Trade. However, China still accounts for 23% of Uzbekistan’s foreign trade in January-August 2026, while US goods trade with Uzbekistan totalled at $1.05 billion in 2025, which is less than a fifteenth of the value of its trade with China. Rubio said Washington was not asking Central Asian countries to stop cooperating with other partners, but would instead compete for investment. Tashkent is likely to welcome investment from both sides, but the trade gap shows how challenging it will be if it were to decrease its dependence on Beijing. “Chinese Premier Li Qiang visited Uzbekistan on October 17–18, just ahead of United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who arrived in Samarkand on October 18 with a delegation of American business leaders seeking new contracts. While China already has a substantial presence in Uzbek manufacturing and energy, Washington is seeking to expand American involvement in critical minerals and technology. The visits highlight the growing competition between the world’s two largest economies for influence in Central Asia. On October 17, President Shavkat Mirziyoyev received Li Qiang. According to the Uzbek presidential administration, the portfolio of joint projects backed by firm agreements has reached nearly $60 billion. More than 6,000 joint ventures with Chinese participation have been established in Uzbekistan. (...) Construction of the China–Kyrgyzstan–Uzbekistan railway was another topic of discussion. Work officially began in December 2024. The route will cross mountainous areas of Kyrgyzstan and connect the railway networks of China and Uzbekistan. The 304-kilometer section through Kyrgyzstan alone is estimated to cost $4.7 billion and will require 50 bridges and 29 tunnels. (...) On October 19, Rubio attended talks in Samarkand under the C5+1 format, bringing together the U.S. and Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Rubio said nearly 300 American businesses were represented in Samarkand. Companies were discussing agreements potentially worth billions of dollars, with concrete announcements expected following the meetings. Among Washington’s priorities are critical minerals used in advanced technologies, including electronics and batteries.”

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)