Tweet
Institute for War & Peace Reporting, UK
Oct 30 2009
Special Report: Opposition in south Caucasus
OPPOSITION ACROSS REGION BATTLES BIAS, INDIFFERENCE TO CHANGE
Governments of south Caucasus mostly left with a clear run despite
allegations of repression.
By IWPR staff in south Caucasus
All across the region, opposition leaders complain of unfair
conditions for political competition, and experts say the governments'
firm grip on power is impeding development.
But there are also signs that after the ferment of the first
post-Soviet decade, the public has grown disillusioned with squabbling
politicians, leaving the opposition stripped of support and ideas.
`The government says that the Azerbaijan opposition is very weak, that
it has no weight in society and no support base. But in fact political
parties do not have freedom of action in this country. Television,
which effectively works for the government, is closed to the
opposition. There is no freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly,'
said Isa Gambar, chairman of Musavat, the best known Azerbaijan
opposition party.
Gambar was acting president of Azerbaijan after independence, and
prepared the country for its first elections. He stood against the
current president in 2003 but was heavily beaten in a poll criticised
by international observers.
It took a major police effort to clear his supporters off the streets
after the election, but since then opposition support seems to have
evaporated, as political leaders realise the only chance for power is
cooperation with the existing authorities and businessmen realise
there is no point in backing a lost cause.
The situation is the same across much of the region, including `
curiously - in Nagorny Karabakh, which has declared independence from
Azerbaijan but which is seen by the world as a rogue province. Even
during the war in which it broke free of Baku's control, which ended
in a 1994 ceasefire, it had a vigorous opposition movement.
But now all major political groups in the Armenian-inhabited territory
are lined up behind President Bako Sahakian, whose allies dominate
parliament, and opposition groupings have shrivelled to a rump.
`Here everything gets killed - ideas, movements, differences,
competition and, as a result, development,' Gegham Baghdasarian,
president of the Stepanakert press club and one of the few independent
members of parliament, told IWPR.
The south Caucasus countries - Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia - have
all been tied up in territorial disputes since the dying days of the
Soviet state. Armenia and Azerbaijan clashed over Nagorny Karabakh,
and still have not signed a peace deal to end the conflict.
Georgia in turn fought minority nations for control over the
autonomous regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, losing its hold over
both in the early 1990s. Last year, Russia intervened against the
Georgians and recognised the two breakaway regions as independent
states, although most of the rest of the world still considers them
part of Georgia.
Abkhazia has presidential elections in December, and Raul Khadzhimba,
vice-president until earlier this year, is campaigning against his
former boss, Sergei Bagapsh. He makes the same complaints as in other
parts of the south Caucasus, and blames the government for denying him
access to the media and to the state's resources.
But analysts here, as well as elsewhere, say his lack of policies
works against him. The difficult position of Abkhazia - poor, legally
dubious, devastated by war, dependent on Russia for more than half its
budget - means whoever is in government has only very limited room for
manoeuvre.
`All the political movements 'from the government and the opposition `
speak of the need to build a law-based democratic state, a
socially-orientated market economy, the significance of preserving the
Abkhaz ethnic group and language, of strengthening ties with Russia,'
said Arda Inal-Ipa, the co-director of the Centre for Humanitarian
Programmes think-tank in Sukhum.
`A normal observer struggles to work out what is the main difference
between the main political forces. A clear and comprehensible
difference is in personnel, in the leaders and make-up of the teams. I
still hope that the decisive factor in the elections will not be
negative campaigning but ideas and programmes.'
That is a common lament across the region, since the various conflict
lines mean governments have little choice in what they can do. This
means opposition movements often have to rely on rhetoric - something
that can easily be mocked by government allies.
In Armenia, Serzh Sargsian won election as president last year in a
poll that opposition figures said was rigged. Mass protests were
broken up by police, with ten deaths, and the opposition has struggled
to regain the initiative since many of its leading figures have ended
up behind bars. Its appeals to the people are heartfelt, but lack
details.
`I think that the restoration of freedom and democracy in the country
would lead to a release of the democratic potential of the people, a
reduction in monopolies and privileges in the economy, honest
competition in every sector. In such a situation Armenia would gain
such room for manoeuvre that it could take its own decisions and be
less under the control of outside forces,' said Levon Zurabian, a
representative of the opposition Armenian National Congress grouping.
`The police regime does all it can to keep to a minimum the number of
people at protests. Such a situation cannot last long and makes clear
that the regime relies on bayonets.'
But the protests the opposition has held have come to nothing, and
supporters have grown disillusioned and drifted away. The government's
allies therefore find it easy to mock their opponents.
`At these protests they always repeat the same words about the bright
future of the nation and the country. They say that as soon as they
come to power, everything will be set right. But people do not believe
these protests and actions,' said Galust Sahakian, who heads the
parliamentary grouping of the Armenian president's Republican Party,
with heavy sarcasm.
`The government also does not pay too much attention to these protests
and actions. These are repetitive, boring and ineffective acts.
Therefore control by the authorities is unnecessary.'
It is only in Georgia that the opposition movements have retained
their post-Soviet vitality. Activists paralysed the capital Tbilisi
for four months earlier this year, blocking the main street and lining
it with tents painted to resemble prison cells.
Here, opposition leaders - who also complain of the government using
the state's resources against them and of rigged media access `
uncompromisingly insisted on President Mikhail Saakashvili's
resignation throughout the protests, and rejected deals suggested by
the government.
That now looks like a mistake, since the activists eventually
dispersed with nothing achieved, forcing the leaders of the opposition
Alliance for Georgia grouping to consider their tactics.
`These multi-month protests ended with nothing. I am not in agreement
with the opinion that the authorities won. This isn't the case. We are
entering autumn with the same strength as we went into spring,'
insisted David Usupashvili, leader of the Republican Party and one of
the heads of the opposition Alliance for Georgia.
But, having said that, he confirmed opposition leaders were now
prepared to enter into dialogue with the government, and would not
rely on public pressure alone to achieve results.
`Today it would be a big mistake to confine ourselves to opposition
street protests. We will challenge the authorities in any way we can:
dialogue, debates, rhetoric, policy initiatives and, of course,
protests,' he said.
Analysts, however - like everywhere in the Caucasus - said the
opposition would be better advised to talk to the electorate and see
what voters wanted in the way of policies, rather than concentrating
on big, headline-grabbing, but essentially fruitless protests.
`Believe me, the people don't much care if Saakashvili is good or bad.
Their problems are much more real, like the price of petrol, or the
problems of the grape harvest. The opposition should work in this
direction,' said Andro Barnov, a political analyst.
`They are taking a step to nowhere,' he said.
Writers:
Tea Topuria is a freelance journalist in Tbilisi. Anaid Gogoryan is a
reporter from Abkhazia's Chegemskaya Pravda and a participant in
IWPR's Cross-Caucasus Journalism Network. Gegham Vardanian is a
journalist from Internews Armenia in Yerevan. Anahit Danelian is a
correspondent for Hetq in Stepanakert and a CCJN participant. Samira
Ahmedbeyli is an IWPR staff member in Azerbaijan. Shahin Rzayev is
IWPR's Azerbaijan country director. Rita Karapetian is a freelance
journalist.
Oct 30 2009
Special Report: Opposition in south Caucasus
OPPOSITION ACROSS REGION BATTLES BIAS, INDIFFERENCE TO CHANGE
Governments of south Caucasus mostly left with a clear run despite
allegations of repression.
By IWPR staff in south Caucasus
All across the region, opposition leaders complain of unfair
conditions for political competition, and experts say the governments'
firm grip on power is impeding development.
But there are also signs that after the ferment of the first
post-Soviet decade, the public has grown disillusioned with squabbling
politicians, leaving the opposition stripped of support and ideas.
`The government says that the Azerbaijan opposition is very weak, that
it has no weight in society and no support base. But in fact political
parties do not have freedom of action in this country. Television,
which effectively works for the government, is closed to the
opposition. There is no freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly,'
said Isa Gambar, chairman of Musavat, the best known Azerbaijan
opposition party.
Gambar was acting president of Azerbaijan after independence, and
prepared the country for its first elections. He stood against the
current president in 2003 but was heavily beaten in a poll criticised
by international observers.
It took a major police effort to clear his supporters off the streets
after the election, but since then opposition support seems to have
evaporated, as political leaders realise the only chance for power is
cooperation with the existing authorities and businessmen realise
there is no point in backing a lost cause.
The situation is the same across much of the region, including `
curiously - in Nagorny Karabakh, which has declared independence from
Azerbaijan but which is seen by the world as a rogue province. Even
during the war in which it broke free of Baku's control, which ended
in a 1994 ceasefire, it had a vigorous opposition movement.
But now all major political groups in the Armenian-inhabited territory
are lined up behind President Bako Sahakian, whose allies dominate
parliament, and opposition groupings have shrivelled to a rump.
`Here everything gets killed - ideas, movements, differences,
competition and, as a result, development,' Gegham Baghdasarian,
president of the Stepanakert press club and one of the few independent
members of parliament, told IWPR.
The south Caucasus countries - Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia - have
all been tied up in territorial disputes since the dying days of the
Soviet state. Armenia and Azerbaijan clashed over Nagorny Karabakh,
and still have not signed a peace deal to end the conflict.
Georgia in turn fought minority nations for control over the
autonomous regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, losing its hold over
both in the early 1990s. Last year, Russia intervened against the
Georgians and recognised the two breakaway regions as independent
states, although most of the rest of the world still considers them
part of Georgia.
Abkhazia has presidential elections in December, and Raul Khadzhimba,
vice-president until earlier this year, is campaigning against his
former boss, Sergei Bagapsh. He makes the same complaints as in other
parts of the south Caucasus, and blames the government for denying him
access to the media and to the state's resources.
But analysts here, as well as elsewhere, say his lack of policies
works against him. The difficult position of Abkhazia - poor, legally
dubious, devastated by war, dependent on Russia for more than half its
budget - means whoever is in government has only very limited room for
manoeuvre.
`All the political movements 'from the government and the opposition `
speak of the need to build a law-based democratic state, a
socially-orientated market economy, the significance of preserving the
Abkhaz ethnic group and language, of strengthening ties with Russia,'
said Arda Inal-Ipa, the co-director of the Centre for Humanitarian
Programmes think-tank in Sukhum.
`A normal observer struggles to work out what is the main difference
between the main political forces. A clear and comprehensible
difference is in personnel, in the leaders and make-up of the teams. I
still hope that the decisive factor in the elections will not be
negative campaigning but ideas and programmes.'
That is a common lament across the region, since the various conflict
lines mean governments have little choice in what they can do. This
means opposition movements often have to rely on rhetoric - something
that can easily be mocked by government allies.
In Armenia, Serzh Sargsian won election as president last year in a
poll that opposition figures said was rigged. Mass protests were
broken up by police, with ten deaths, and the opposition has struggled
to regain the initiative since many of its leading figures have ended
up behind bars. Its appeals to the people are heartfelt, but lack
details.
`I think that the restoration of freedom and democracy in the country
would lead to a release of the democratic potential of the people, a
reduction in monopolies and privileges in the economy, honest
competition in every sector. In such a situation Armenia would gain
such room for manoeuvre that it could take its own decisions and be
less under the control of outside forces,' said Levon Zurabian, a
representative of the opposition Armenian National Congress grouping.
`The police regime does all it can to keep to a minimum the number of
people at protests. Such a situation cannot last long and makes clear
that the regime relies on bayonets.'
But the protests the opposition has held have come to nothing, and
supporters have grown disillusioned and drifted away. The government's
allies therefore find it easy to mock their opponents.
`At these protests they always repeat the same words about the bright
future of the nation and the country. They say that as soon as they
come to power, everything will be set right. But people do not believe
these protests and actions,' said Galust Sahakian, who heads the
parliamentary grouping of the Armenian president's Republican Party,
with heavy sarcasm.
`The government also does not pay too much attention to these protests
and actions. These are repetitive, boring and ineffective acts.
Therefore control by the authorities is unnecessary.'
It is only in Georgia that the opposition movements have retained
their post-Soviet vitality. Activists paralysed the capital Tbilisi
for four months earlier this year, blocking the main street and lining
it with tents painted to resemble prison cells.
Here, opposition leaders - who also complain of the government using
the state's resources against them and of rigged media access `
uncompromisingly insisted on President Mikhail Saakashvili's
resignation throughout the protests, and rejected deals suggested by
the government.
That now looks like a mistake, since the activists eventually
dispersed with nothing achieved, forcing the leaders of the opposition
Alliance for Georgia grouping to consider their tactics.
`These multi-month protests ended with nothing. I am not in agreement
with the opinion that the authorities won. This isn't the case. We are
entering autumn with the same strength as we went into spring,'
insisted David Usupashvili, leader of the Republican Party and one of
the heads of the opposition Alliance for Georgia.
But, having said that, he confirmed opposition leaders were now
prepared to enter into dialogue with the government, and would not
rely on public pressure alone to achieve results.
`Today it would be a big mistake to confine ourselves to opposition
street protests. We will challenge the authorities in any way we can:
dialogue, debates, rhetoric, policy initiatives and, of course,
protests,' he said.
Analysts, however - like everywhere in the Caucasus - said the
opposition would be better advised to talk to the electorate and see
what voters wanted in the way of policies, rather than concentrating
on big, headline-grabbing, but essentially fruitless protests.
`Believe me, the people don't much care if Saakashvili is good or bad.
Their problems are much more real, like the price of petrol, or the
problems of the grape harvest. The opposition should work in this
direction,' said Andro Barnov, a political analyst.
`They are taking a step to nowhere,' he said.
Writers:
Tea Topuria is a freelance journalist in Tbilisi. Anaid Gogoryan is a
reporter from Abkhazia's Chegemskaya Pravda and a participant in
IWPR's Cross-Caucasus Journalism Network. Gegham Vardanian is a
journalist from Internews Armenia in Yerevan. Anahit Danelian is a
correspondent for Hetq in Stepanakert and a CCJN participant. Samira
Ahmedbeyli is an IWPR staff member in Azerbaijan. Shahin Rzayev is
IWPR's Azerbaijan country director. Rita Karapetian is a freelance
journalist.