Tweet
TWO SHALLOW ARGUMENTS IN DEFENSE OF DICTATOR ALIYEV
By Elmar Chakhtakhtinski
http://azerireport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3596&Ite mid=48
Azerbaijani President Aliyev is visiting the United States. As
expected, different experts, lobbyists and politicians will be
explaining the reasons why the leader of a corrupt regime with one
of the worst records on human rights should be supported as America's
"strategic ally". In doing so, too smart to use any crude propaganda
materials produced by the government in Baku, they will resort to
their two most popular arguments.
First, the apologists will say that a young country like Azerbaijan,
stuck in a turbulent region, currently requires a strong leader more
than democracy. That is what can provide stability and continuity much
needed for securing both the country's own future and the Western
interests in the region. Sounds reasonable, thoughtful - exactly as
a real expert opinion should?
I will put aside doubts about Ilham Aliyev's leadership strengths. The
fundamental problem is that when we talk of "strong leaders" people
usually think of George Washington, Charles De Gaulle, or someone
perhaps closer to Azerbaijan, like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Those indeed
were determined personalities, real leaders who have spent their lives
for the future of their nations. By their actions, they demonstrated
noble intentions as well as solid moral principles and dedication to
achieve them from the very early days of their public lives.
But the history also witnessed a long chain of equally "effective"
leaders, whose actions have led to great disasters for their own
people and, sometimes, for a greater humanity. From Stalin and Hitler
to Saddam Hussein and Kaddafi, we have examples of strong-willed
individuals who, pursuing either a populist but malevolent ideology
or a more basic personal thirst for fame and money, have inflicted
terrible pain and suffering on people. They were of a varying caliber
and destructive capability, but the world would have been a better
place if none of them would have ever climbed to power.
So, what is Ilham Aliyev's vision for Azerbaijan, his moral code and
guiding principles? Which of the two groups of leaders he is closer
to? I would dare to suggest that the answer lies in the reports of
mega-million dollar mansions and secretive off-shore holdings owned by
his family, wholesale falsification of every single election, brutal
crackdown and shameful tactics deployed against dissenters and free
media, illegal property seizures and many other gross trespasses
continuously committed for almost two decades under the rule of
father-and-son Aliyevs.
We also saw the danger of totalitarian "continuity and stability"
ending in seemingly sudden explosions of angry dissent: from
thousands dying in Egypt protests with still undetermined results of
their revolution, to the bloody civil war in Libya resulting in the
dictator's corpses dragged on the highway, to the still continuing
massacre of Syrian people by the Assad regime. In all these instances
the Western powers found themselves desperately rushing in search of
a proper response and were left facing uncertain prospects. The truth
is that we can't know how long a given "stable" authoritarian regime
can last, but betting the national interests of free nations on the
endurance of corrupt dictatorships does not sound like a responsible
foreign policy choice.
The other favorite line is that "democracy takes time", "it cannot
happen overnight" and Azerbaijani people might not be fully ready to
it now. Who, indeed, can blame the Azerbaijani government that their
country does not run in the same way as United States or Switzerland?
Again, the problem is in the improper associations such proposition
is based on.
Nobody expects countries like Azerbaijan to quickly transfer
themselves into mature democracies - it might not happen even in
several decades. But is it too much to ask for the Azerbaijani people
to have at least one free and fair election in 20 years? Are they
not ready for a leader not implicated in rampant corruption? How long
should they wait for being able to live without fear of their private
homes being bulldozed over their heads in the center of capital city?
Should it really take decades before journalists, bloggers, and
political opponents stop being murdered, physically attacked, jailed
under obviously fabricated charges and blackmailed with sexual videos?
True, Azerbaijan is not unique in the problems it faces - many
countries have similar or worse regimes. But telling Azerbaijanis that
they might not be ready yet for something better than the neo-feudal
mafia-like Aliyev dynasty really requires a twisted logic and goes
against the very basic principles of any civilized society.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
By Elmar Chakhtakhtinski
http://azerireport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3596&Ite mid=48
Azerbaijani President Aliyev is visiting the United States. As
expected, different experts, lobbyists and politicians will be
explaining the reasons why the leader of a corrupt regime with one
of the worst records on human rights should be supported as America's
"strategic ally". In doing so, too smart to use any crude propaganda
materials produced by the government in Baku, they will resort to
their two most popular arguments.
First, the apologists will say that a young country like Azerbaijan,
stuck in a turbulent region, currently requires a strong leader more
than democracy. That is what can provide stability and continuity much
needed for securing both the country's own future and the Western
interests in the region. Sounds reasonable, thoughtful - exactly as
a real expert opinion should?
I will put aside doubts about Ilham Aliyev's leadership strengths. The
fundamental problem is that when we talk of "strong leaders" people
usually think of George Washington, Charles De Gaulle, or someone
perhaps closer to Azerbaijan, like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Those indeed
were determined personalities, real leaders who have spent their lives
for the future of their nations. By their actions, they demonstrated
noble intentions as well as solid moral principles and dedication to
achieve them from the very early days of their public lives.
But the history also witnessed a long chain of equally "effective"
leaders, whose actions have led to great disasters for their own
people and, sometimes, for a greater humanity. From Stalin and Hitler
to Saddam Hussein and Kaddafi, we have examples of strong-willed
individuals who, pursuing either a populist but malevolent ideology
or a more basic personal thirst for fame and money, have inflicted
terrible pain and suffering on people. They were of a varying caliber
and destructive capability, but the world would have been a better
place if none of them would have ever climbed to power.
So, what is Ilham Aliyev's vision for Azerbaijan, his moral code and
guiding principles? Which of the two groups of leaders he is closer
to? I would dare to suggest that the answer lies in the reports of
mega-million dollar mansions and secretive off-shore holdings owned by
his family, wholesale falsification of every single election, brutal
crackdown and shameful tactics deployed against dissenters and free
media, illegal property seizures and many other gross trespasses
continuously committed for almost two decades under the rule of
father-and-son Aliyevs.
We also saw the danger of totalitarian "continuity and stability"
ending in seemingly sudden explosions of angry dissent: from
thousands dying in Egypt protests with still undetermined results of
their revolution, to the bloody civil war in Libya resulting in the
dictator's corpses dragged on the highway, to the still continuing
massacre of Syrian people by the Assad regime. In all these instances
the Western powers found themselves desperately rushing in search of
a proper response and were left facing uncertain prospects. The truth
is that we can't know how long a given "stable" authoritarian regime
can last, but betting the national interests of free nations on the
endurance of corrupt dictatorships does not sound like a responsible
foreign policy choice.
The other favorite line is that "democracy takes time", "it cannot
happen overnight" and Azerbaijani people might not be fully ready to
it now. Who, indeed, can blame the Azerbaijani government that their
country does not run in the same way as United States or Switzerland?
Again, the problem is in the improper associations such proposition
is based on.
Nobody expects countries like Azerbaijan to quickly transfer
themselves into mature democracies - it might not happen even in
several decades. But is it too much to ask for the Azerbaijani people
to have at least one free and fair election in 20 years? Are they
not ready for a leader not implicated in rampant corruption? How long
should they wait for being able to live without fear of their private
homes being bulldozed over their heads in the center of capital city?
Should it really take decades before journalists, bloggers, and
political opponents stop being murdered, physically attacked, jailed
under obviously fabricated charges and blackmailed with sexual videos?
True, Azerbaijan is not unique in the problems it faces - many
countries have similar or worse regimes. But telling Azerbaijanis that
they might not be ready yet for something better than the neo-feudal
mafia-like Aliyev dynasty really requires a twisted logic and goes
against the very basic principles of any civilized society.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress