AZERBAIJAN SEES ARMENIA DIFFERENTLY AFTER ELECTIONS
By Fariz Ismailzade
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
April 30 2008
"Democracy in Azerbaijan is at least no worse than in Georgia, but the
comparison with Armenia is almost impossible," said Khazar Ibrahim,
the head of the press service of the Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (, April 29). This statement came as a result of
presidential elections in Armenia and the shattered situation with
democracy and human rights in that country. For Azerbaijan, this
turn-around seems to bring more self-confidence, as well as positive
hopes for a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
For many years the international community has been rating Armenia’s
democratic developments ahead of those in Azerbaijan. Rankings used
by prestigious organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, Freedom
House and others indicated that Armenia had made more progress toward
democracy than Azerbaijan. Although serious doubts remained about
the methodology and indicators used for these rankings, the general
public seemed to trust them, both at home and abroad.
This had several negative implications for Azerbaijan and for
regional security. On the one hand, many foreign governments
and international organizations have justified the occupation of
Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenia with the fact that Armenia enjoyed higher
democratic standards. The United States Congress even openly declared
support for sanctions on Azerbaijan, citing human rights problems,
although the official text of the sanctions had nothing to do with
the domestic developments, but rather the military situation between
Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Now, however, the situation seems to have changed. What was expected to
be a smooth transition of power from former President Robert Kocharian
to his closest political ally, Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisian,
has become one of the most serious cases of political turmoil since
the country’s independence in 1991. Officially, Sarkisian received
a little more than 52 percent of the votes cast, with opposition
arguing that there needed to be a second round. The opposition
protested. The police and army reacted brutally. Tanks were brought
in and bullets were used against the demonstrators. As a result,
eight people were killed and more than 100 were severely wounded. The
Kocharian-Sarkisian regime imposed martial law and arrested more than
200 opposition activists. Media censorship, including on the Internet,
was imposed in the country.
The situation has severely damaged the image of Armenia abroad. The
governments of Norway and the United States, and international
organizations such as the OSCE, the Council of Europe and others have
expressed deep regret about the events in Yerevan and have urged
Armenian authorities to use democratic means to build political
dialogue and consensus in the country.
These recent developments, if closely analyzed, do not stand alone
from the rest of Armenia’s post-Soviet history. The use of violence
for political purposes has been a frequent feature in the Armenian
political arena. In 1997 President Levon Ter-Petrosian was forced to
resign by an internal coup headed by Robert Kocharian, who was then
Prime Minister, and backed by the defense and security ministers. In
1999 gunmen stormed parliament and killed the speaker of parliament,
the prime minister and dozen more MPs and government officials. It
is still unclear who was behind these gunmen and what were they
trying to achieve. Analysts believe, however, that the murder of
these high-profile officials was aimed at empowering former President
Kocharian and undermining the peace process around the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. There are also other examples in the history of Armenia of
the use of violence and terror for political purposes.
These undemocratic developments in Armenia–the use of violence
and a brutal crackdown on the opposition activists–will affect
the future of the country and the region in a number of areas,
including political stability, economic prosperity and the state of
democracy. The biggest blow to Armenia, however, will be with regard
to the process of negotiations over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Azerbaijan, having achieved political stability, enjoys the highest GDP
growth in the world at 35 percent (Ministry of Economic Development
website), maintains absolute sovereignty over its foreign policy
(enjoying very good, but equal, relations with both the West and
Russia) and is making further advances in political freedoms and
democratic standards.
Armenia, on the other hand, has nearly fallen into complete dependence
on Russia, both politically and economically, sees itself increasingly
isolated from regional transportation and energy projects, continues
to struggle with the economy and trade and now has also proven that
the state of democracy in the country has greatly worsened.
Under these conditions Azerbaijan’s self-confidence is rapidly
increasing, and it is likely that this will have an impact on the
future of the negotiation process as well. Azerbaijan no longer sees
itself as "second-rate" country, and its growing capacities will
push it to be more principled. It will also bring more international
pressure on Armenia, as the West is increasingly irritated by the
sharp drop of democratic standards in that country.