ALL CALM ON THE HORIZON
Comment By Sergei Markedonov
Special to Russia Profile

Russia Profile, Russia
Oct 10 2005

Armenia and Azerbaijan Not Worried About Revolutions

The countries of the south Caucasus could be in for a hot autumn this
year. Georgia, for example, will mark the second anniversary of the
“Rose Revolution” that brought Mikheil Saakashvili to power, but it
is doubtful that the date will take place in a festive atmosphere.

Much discussion about the successes and failures of Georgia’s
revolution still lies ahead, as many of the goals that were set out
by its leaders have yet to be reached. No serious progress has been
made in re-establishing the country’s territorial integrity and a
number of social and economic problems still weigh heavy. What’s
more, many in Georgia accuse Saakahsvili and his team of ruling
with an authoritarian hand, not following democratic principles and
institutionalizing a one-man regime in Georgian politics.

Nevertheless, Georgia remains a sort of beacon for the other countries
in the region, as every election campaign, whether presidential or
parliamentary, held in neighboring states since 2003, have had a whiff
of approaching revolution. This also goes for election campaigns in
entities not recognized by the international community. Abkhazia lived
through a “velvet revolution” of its own almost a year ago, and there
was the approach of revolution in the air in Nagorny Karabakh in June.

Armenia and Azerbaijan are no exceptions in this respect and both
have to face the test of how ripe they are for revolution. Armenia
will soon be holding a referendum on proposed amendments to its
constitution and Azerbaijan will hold parliamentary elections on Nov.

6. In both cases the votes are expected to be more open than
was the case with the presidential election in Azerbaijan and the
presidential and parliamentary elections in Armenia in 2003. This may
be an indicator that the CIS has entered a new, post-revolutionary
phase. The main sign of this new situation is the presence of
election observers from the United States, Europe and international
organizations, whose work is to ensure that voting measures up to
democratic standards. Emissaries from Washington and Brussels are
already busy announcing the conditions for the upcoming elections
in the southern Caucasus, and a certain division of labor can be
seen here. The European organizations are paying closer attention to
democracy in Azerbaijan, while those from the United States are keeping
a watchful eye on Armenia – not surprising, given that Armenia’s
traditional geopolitical position of close relations with Russia and a
firm anti-Turkish line is not entirely to the taste of U.S. diplomats.

In a message addressed to Azerbaijani officials at the end of August,
Rene van der Linden, president of the Council of Europe Parliamentary
Assembly, said, “You must show that you want to and can fulfill the
commitments you made to the Council of Europe and the international
community.”

U.S. Ambassador to Armenia John Evans, for his part, said recently that
the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Armenian constitution
in a national referendum would open up broad new opportunities for
the republic. In Evans’ words, “failure of the referendum would slow
down the democratic processes in Armenia,” and falsification of its
results would set off mass popular protests.

But the presidents of the two countries, Ilham Aliyev in
Azerbaijan and Robert Kocharian in Armenia, have both said on a
number of occasions that they see no revolutions on the horizon
in their countries. Analysts note, however, that there is serious
dissatisfaction among some of the elites both in Armenia and in
Azerbaijan. Both countries face social and economic problems and
the longstanding, unresolved problem of Nagorny Karabakh (which
still pits the two countries against each other). Additionally,
clan dominance – the Nakhichevan-Yerazovsky clan holds power in
Baku, while people from Karabakh run the scene in Yerevan – works
against Aliyev and Kocharian. At various round tables and forums on
the Caucasus in the United States and Europe, the view can be heard
that a democratic revolution in Armenia and Azerbaijan would put an
end to the long-running Karabakh conflict. But are there any real
signs that these two countries could follow Georgia’s path this fall?

It would seem to be too soon to predict the triumph of democratic
revolutionaries in Yerevan and Baku. The current leadership in both
countries enjoys a solid position. Neither country has a fragmented
elite, as was the case in Ukraine, or faces the total privatization
of power, as was the case during Eduard Shevardnadze’s final years in
Georgia. What’s more, in Armenia, Kocharian and his entourage have
attempted to take the lead on revolutionary rhetoric themselves,
embracing democratic slogans and talking of moving closer to Europe.

It was Kocharian’s team that proposed the package of amendments to the
country’s constitution, under question at the referendum, to bring it
into line with European standards. The changes include broadening the
prime minister’s powers (making the post more political, as opposed
to its purely technocratic character at present) and granting the
parliament broader powers. The draft amendments have already passed
through the parliament, with the referendum due to take place on
Nov. 20. The U.S. administration has also expressed its support for
the idea of a referendum.

Kocharian has also stepped up his personal contacts with Saakashvili,
the region’s chief revolutionary. Given that Armenia has a powerful
resource in the Armenian diaspora to support it in its undertakings,
Kocharian and his team have a decent chance of repeating the Moldovan
experience and heading the revolution themselves.

Azerbaijan’s Aliyev is not behind any serious democratic projects of
this type, but he has another card up his sleeve – geopolitics. U.S.

President George W. Bush has spoken on a number of occasions of the
need to deal with Iran. Given the complicated situation in Iraq and
Turkey’s cooling relations with the United States, Azerbaijan could
hypothetically become an important base for a future operation against
Iran. Washington, therefore, has an interest in seeing a strong and
stable state in Azerbaijan, a state that is under control.

An Azerbaijan that is seized and destabilized by internal disputes is
not in the interests of the United States. In this respect, a recent
statement by U.S. Senator Richard Lugar was not a coincidence. “No
orange revolution is expected in Azerbaijan,” the senator said,
adding that the image of Azerbaijan as a country ripe for revolution
was not an accurate one.

But the opposition in both countries has serious plans and is not
willing to make concessions either to a “democratizing,” Kocharian,
or to Aliyev and his geopolitical approach. “Armenia is entering a
new political stage, where we either express our lack of confidence
in the current regime or the regime continues paving the road to its
own reproduction,” Aram Sarkisian, leader of the opposition Democratic
Party of Armenia, said at an extraordinary session of the country’s
parliament on Sept. 1. Isa Gambar, leader of Musavat, the chief
opposition party in Azerbaijan, said that the “world’s attention is
focused on holding transparent elections. If there is any attempt to
break the rules in these elections, the world will see our strength”.

In other words, the elections in Azerbaijan and the referendum in
Armenia promise to be exciting. But an analysis of the people and
potential in the opposition camps in both countries does not bode well
for their chances. The revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine were led by
people who had already held high state office, had broken with the
current regime, and had staked their reputation on something more
than simply being a part of the government. They already had real
experience of state management. Saakashvili was justice minister and
had made a name for himself in the government while Shevardnadze
was still in power. The speaker of the Georgian parliament, Nino
Burdzhanadze, already held the post before the revolution. In Ukraine,
Viktor Yushchenko had earlier served as prime minister and was very
popular with a significant part of the public, while Yulia Tymoshenko
had already served as deputy prime minister. Neither the Azerbaijani
or Armenian opposition can boast figures of this stature or experience.

But the situation could still change before the end of October. If
either of the two governments slips up strategically, for example by
bringing too much pressure to bear on the opposition, this would play
into the hands of would-be revolutionaries and provide an incentive
for their consolidation. Paradoxical though it may sound, it would
be in the best interests of the authorities in both Baku and Yerevan
not to allow any falsification in the votes, all the more so as,
unlike Shevardnadze in Georgia, they do still enjoy a certain level
of the public’s confidence in their countries.

The Karabakh issue is a major trump card for both Baku and Yerevan.

The problem is that the oppositions in both countries, while democratic
on some points, are not so democratic when it comes to Karabakh, and
opposition members on both sides are ready to take an even firmer line
against their opponents than is the case with the current regimes. This
means that a potential revolution in either country is no guarantee at
all of a breakthrough in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. This is
also a serious issue in internal political battles and in the battle
for the backing of the United States and Europe.

Whatever the case, the fall will bring an interesting political season
for the south Caucasus, but whether revolution will be on the menu
depends on the authorities’ actions and the opposition’s ability to
consolidate its forces.

Sergei Markedonov is head of the department for problems of
international relations at the Institute of Political and Military
Analysis.