An Invisible Conflict between Unknown Enemies
Khalid Rajabov, Azerbaijan
Democratic governance, democratic institutions, free and fair elections, the rule of law, market economics, trade liberalization, privatization, political pluralism – these are some of the watchwords the West uses in relation to the post-Soviet republics, and with little regard for local sensitivities. The speeches of George W. Bush, in particular, conjure up uncomfortable comparisons between the current American missionary commitment to spreading ‘democracy and liberty’ and the Bolshevik fever to ‘civilize’ the barbaric Muslim periphery of the Soviet Union in the 1920s.
Even though ordinary people are a target group for various initiatives promoting political democracy, market economics and civil society, high-profile Western politicians rarely discuss these issues during their visits to Azerbaijan. Apart from occasional trips to the regions and rare meetings with NGO representatives, they only speak to government officials and opposition leaders, in other words, the political and economic elite.
From this it would be natural to conclude that Azerbaijani political culture and political-economic structures operate top-down, with decision-making processes concentrated entirely in the hands of the elite, with the masses playing only a minimal role. It would also be easy to believe that the future of the country and society as a whole will be determined by the struggle between the government and the opposition. The equation looks simple: if the state takes over, then democracy is doomed, but if the opposition successfully challenges the ruling party, then society will move towards democracy.
I believe, however, there is a need for more flexibility and depth in our thinking on this issue. We should ask ourselves whether it is correct to speak of Azerbaijani society operating as a top-down organization. Perhaps it is the other way around: the current political-economic situation is the outcome of processes supported and maintained from the bottom up.
Different surveys conducted by various NGOs and research institutions, as well as daily behavioural and communication patterns in Azeri society, suggest that ordinary Azeris are quite well-informed about the distortion of national and local elections, the country’s poor record of human rights and democracy, and the prevalence of nepotism, regionalism and the economic monopolies that hinder the development of small- and medium-sized enterprises. The average citizen is not a disinterested observer of corruption or political-economic mismanagement, but emerges as an active participant responsible for maintaining the established system.
In order to explain the people’s passivity towards internal political processes and why it does not take sides in the struggle between government and opposition, we need to distinguish conflicts of interests from conflicts of values, ideologies and interpretations. The Azerbaijani political establishment is divided not along ideological, but regional lines. In other words, the struggle between government and the opposition should be seen as a struggle for power and resources between regional/family clans who actually share the same family values, world-view and traditional mentality. The outcome of this conflict will not change society fundamentally; it will simply mean the replacement of one traditions-based network by another.
But the outcome of the conflict of values will be pivotal for the future of democracy in Azerbaijan. This conflict is being fought out between people who want to import democratic values and others who want to keep living according to outdated norms. It is essentially invisible, since it is almost impossible to determine who stands for what. Everyone in society pledges formal allegiance to democracy, human rights, free speech, etc. But if you ask what these terms mean, then you get traditions-based interpretations – not only from the government and opposition parties, but also from ordinary Azerbaijanis.
Thus, democracy is seen as the rule of the majority, where minority views have no place, while human rights mean primarily the right of a person to be respected. Elders must be respected by younger people, a man by his wife, parents by their children, a president by his nation, and so on. In other words, the notion of rights is less important than the notion of respect. Moreover, when we speak of human rights in this context, then the rights of homosexuals and even of ethnic minorities which have challenged Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity are not included.
This conflict of values and interpretations is hidden, because it is difficult to know where the dividing lines lie. Indeed, in most cases even those directly involved do not know how far their interpretations differ from genuine democratic principles. Only by seeking and establishing clear interpretations can one work out where people stand.
So the issue is not whether the general public and the political establishment (government and opposition alike) want democracy, but rather how they envisage it. The crucial point is that the majority of people from all social strata see the concept of democracy as emerging out of traditional mores and customs. Consequently, we must embrace a wider approach towards democracy that includes cultural as well as political and economic aspects. This would involve not only members of the political establishment, but the whole of society. In this broad, inclusive framework, differences of interpretation would become reconciled through cultural dialogue.