Opinion: 2020 parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan and Georgia will define the region for the coming decade

Parliamentary elections are due to be held in Azerbaijan and Georgia in 2020. Despite the very different context and background both will provide a catalyst for wider ongoing political process and will contribute to defining the future of the South Caucasus, writes commonspace.eu political editor in this commentary.

The political landscape in Azerbaijan and Georgia is different, but both share a common recent history, a challenge to survive in a difficult neighbourhood and a painful process of transition from Soviet totalitarianism which is far from complete. Next year's parliamentary elections in the two countries will be crucial in determining the region's future.

In Georgia, a clean election is a must

Georgians do politics with gusto. The debate is always inevitably emotional, colourful and noisy. Issues are often blown out of proportion. Politicians appear to have a sense of priority as to what matters most that often leaves outsiders perplexed. Bitter experience has also made Georgians politically savvy. There are red lines that never get crossed. The experience of 1989-93, when the country was in civil war and fragmenting, still looms large in the nation's collective memory. At key moments over the last two decades the country appeared on the brink, but at the last moment common sense prevailed.

There are mixed views as to how serious the current political crisis in Georgia is. The ruling Georgian Dream of Bidzina Ivanishvili has developed a notoriety of shooting itself in the foot. The opposition emboldened by a strong showing in the 2018 presidential elections has used every government misstep to pile up the pressure. Everybody knows the real showdown will come at the next parliamentary elections scheduled for October 2020. Speculation persists that they may be brought forward and held in the spring.

The latest crisis is ostensibly on the election system. Should Georgia have mixed majoritarian-proportional parliamentary system, or only proportional as the opposition demands, and the government had appeared to agree to earlier? Or maybe a fully majoritarian system?  The German model or the British model? To hear Georgians speak these days you would be forgiven to think that the country has turned into a nation of constitutional experts.

Frankly it does not matter, at least not very much. Georgia's current mixed system worked well enough in the past. It did not stop the historic peaceful transfer of power from the Saakashvili government to Ivanishvili's in 2012. The majoritarian system extends the patronage system to the grass roots, and this is supposed to benefit the incumbent government, but the extent to which it does this is very debatable.

The discussion about the electoral system is shifting from the streets to the conference room. The international community, spearheaded by the EU and the US, managed to bring the opposition parties to the negotiating table to discuss with the government a way forward. Various proposals are being discussed. But whether they will agree or not is largely irrelevant.

The litmus test for Georgian politics will be the election itself, under whichever system it is held. A clean, well-organised election where candidates can compete freely - on a by and large level playing field, and where the votes are properly counted, and the results respected - is what is important, and everyone needs to focus on this. This certainly is where the focus of the international community must be going forward. It is very possible that the current talks between government and opposition will also drift in this direction, although the presence of many parties makes the conversation awkward.

If the elections are truly free and fair, the Georgian political elite will have, willy-nilly, to change tactics and up its game. Political parties need to have more clearly identifiable policies. Politics must move away from the personality clash between Saakashvili and Ivanishvili.

Azerbaijan early parliamentary elections on 9 February 2020 has the potential to be one of the most important in the country's political history

 Early Parliamentary elections will be held in Azerbaijan on 8 February 2020 at a time when the country is engrossed in a top-down reform process which has seen a massive generational shift in personnel. President Ilham Aliyev has made the reform programme the cornerstone of his third term in office. New appointments have been made at the highest level of the country's governance system including the cabinet of Ministers, the Presidential Administration and local Executive powers. These have all been top-down changes. The Milli Meclis (parliament) is another matter. Will the process of reform also be bottom-up?

Elections in Azerbaijan in the last decade have been tightly managed affairs that have been criticised by the international community. The elections will provide an opportunity for the government to show that it is serious about reforms, and that they are not merely musical chairs amongst the country's elite. The way the elections are conducted will therefore be highly significant, and carefully watched.

The elections however provide another opportunity. Most of the country's opposition has been locked out in the wilderness for the last decade. It now appears that at least part - spearheaded by Ilgar Mammedov's REAL Movement, may be willing to come in from the cold, and perhaps more significantly that the government is welcoming this step.

This election may well turn out to be one of the most important in Azerbaijan's modern political history. There is, in theory at least, the potential for that.

source: This commentary was prepared by the political editor of commonspace.eu. An earlier version of this commentary was published on the electronic newsletter Caucasus Concise on 12 December 2019

photo: A voter cast her ballot at elections in Georgia in 2018 (archive picture)

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Azerbaijan and UK sign Joint Declaration on Strategic Partnership

Azerbaijan and UK sign Joint Declaration on Strategic Partnership

On November 12, President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev met with Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Andy Burnham in Dublin. They first exchanged the “Joint Declaration on Strategic Partnership between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” During the conversation, it was emphasized that the adoption of the Declaration would formally elevate relations between the two countries to a qualitatively new level. They noted that even before the adoption of the document, relations between Azerbaijan and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland had already been characterized by a strategic partnership. Touching upon more than 30 years of successful energy cooperation between the two countries, the head of state said that the United Kingdom is the largest European investor in Azerbaijan. The sides noted that broad opportunities also exist for cooperation in renewable energy, high technologies and artificial intelligence. In this regard, the two leaders highlighted the importance of high-level official visits from the United Kingdom to Azerbaijan and discussions held in recent months. The meeting also included an exchange of views on issues on the international agenda.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)