Azadliq newspaper 18.12.2008

A FEUDAL MONARCHY IS BEING ESTABLISHED IN AZERBAIJAN Lala SHEVKET: "The major condition of culture is the sense of harmony, which does not allow anyone in a civilised country to try and run for a third presidential term"

"Irresponsible governments, which act regardless of the will of the people, have no future, and their fate will be tragic for themselves" - The Parliament has been discussing the lift on the ban to be elected president more than two times, which shows the government is quite serious in this matter. What do you think about these discussions? - It can be characterised unequivocally. A feudal state is being established in Azerbaijan. Country suffers heavy degradation and lives as in the 13th century. Establishing feudal monarchy has become a priority of the government. This means that the thinking of the persons which are in the government is the archaic primitive thinking. On the other hand it seems there is some kind of anxiety around the president. Because hands of many have become so dirty with corruption and misappropriation that they are fear for their future. So this step is being taken to calm then down and reassure that this government is forever. It is of course a very primitive approach to the problem, which comes out of ignorance. It is a step that will disgrace Azerbaijan and bring it to its doom. I regret that the people in power have all lined up to make this matter topical and justify it. They are prepared to sacrifice today the nation and the state to their comfort. I want to remind those people, who want to exchange values for comfort, that historically they are usually in the end deprived of both. They bring examples from history today too. But I cannot find another name to this but ignorance. Because no person in a civilised democratic nation can be elected president more than twice. It is a law. They bring examples of France and the United States. Well, no person has ever been elected more president more than twice in the whole history of France. Even one of the greatest politicians of the last century president Charles de Gaulle has not served until the end of his second presidential term and voluntarily resigned in 1969. This year an amendment has been made to Article 6 of the French Constitution stating that no person can serve more than two consecutive presidential terms. In the United States such an amendment has been made in 1947 after Franklin Roosevelt has been elected president four times. Roosevelt was the president, which played probably the most important role in the American history. He pulled America from the deepest crisis in its history and transformed it into an economic and military superpower. At the same time his presidency coincided with the World War II, which made him run for presidency in 1944 as well. But despite all that the American public opinion demanded an amendment to the Constitution formalising the two-term restriction, which up to that time was only conventional. The question is why there have been no such provision in the French and US constitutions in the past. This is a very important matter. Usually there is a notion of political culture in the democratic, civilized, cultural countries. The major condition of culture generally and political culture in particular is the sense of harmony. This sense is inside every person. If a person lacks this sense then we say that person is uncultured. It is precisely this sense, which does not allow anyone in a civilised country to try and run for a third presidential term. So, this matter is connected to political culture, which is based on unwritten laws. Culture generally is based on unwritten laws. For instance, when a civilised person sneezes in public he closes his mouth with a handkerchief and apologises. There is no written law for this, is there. This is just a matter of culture and etiquette. The same is in politics. Flattery and hypocrisy are indicators of the lack of culture. I regret that we have stayed behind in the matter of political culture. Energy of ignorance is usually very strong. This problem is a problem arising from ignorance and lack of political culture. Another thing worth mentioning is that the matter arouse after similar changes have been made in Russia. They are doing it in a more reactionary way her in Azerbaijan of course, but the essence is the same. Azerbaijan today imitates Russia in everything. It is a very serious problem. We know what democracy is. Democracy means constant flow of changes. Alternativeness and removability are its major features. I think that the public and the nation as a whole must express its unambiguous attitude towards this problem. The society must either put up resistance, or surrender and accept feudalism. There is no any other way here. The very fate of our country is already in doubt today. - What reaction, in your opinion, will be given by the international organizations to this step of the authorities, which declares European integration its goal? - Many things are said in Azerbaijan. But there is a great chasm in Azerbaijan between words and actions. Nothing is being said of democracy lately. In Heydar Aliyev's time there were always a lot of words about democracy, some kind of an imitation at least. There is no even imitation today. We have come to a situation when our country is listed among most corrupted countries. There has been no election in Azerbaijan meeting democratic standards in the last 10-15 years. Nothing is done to solve the problems of the freedom of speech, imprisonment of journalists and the de-fakto ban on political parties activity in Azerbaijan. Quite on the contrary, Azerbaijan advances quickly towards dictatorship. It imitates both Russian and Turkmen models. But we never see that the Azerbaijani authorities implement any of the European values. It is a very important problem. As for the reaction from the international organizations, it would be better if we look for the reaction from the Azerbaijani society first. Nobody is going to come from abroad and struggle for democracy, justice and freedom in our country. It is an obligation of every one of us. And we must manage to fulfil this obligation however difficult it may be. - Which steps should the society and the opposition take concerning this problem? - There is no doubt that, when society is inactive, the authorities can do anything they want. Today the indifference and despair of the society made possible for these thoughts to be vocalised, for the society is in a very weak state. The opposition certainly will do what is required of it. There is just one shag to it. No matter how selflessly the opposition fights for our common cause, it receives its energy from the society. When it sees that the society is indifferent, hopeless and reacts to nothing, then it becomes very difficult for the opposition . The main problem here is connected with activity of the society. The opposition will spare no effort in order to increase activity of the society, and we will unambiguously say our word. - The global financial crisis is the main topic on the world's agenda. All the predictions allow saying that countries depending on oil revenues will suffer most from the crisis. But the Azerbaijani government does not want to accept this. In your view, what is the reason for such behaviour? - Azerbaijani authorities are generally behaving quite inadequately. The financial crisis has already become an economic one. The whole world is facing its grave consequences. The powerful states, however, have built concrete plans to live through the crisis, which they implement. They do everything for the people not to suffer from this crisis. But the Azerbaijani government says that the crisis will not have any impact on us, that we are strong, and that we have unprecedented economy, and all this crisis is nothing. I say that it is a very irresponsible approach and an inadequate reaction. Azerbaijan is a country heavily depending on oil. 98 percent of export, 70 percent of our budget is directly or indirectly connected to oil and its by-products. Oil price is connected to the global processes. If the largest economies of the world the European Union, the United States and China suffer recession, it means decrease in oil demand. When the demand decreases, oil prices fall down. Price of oil today is in the range of 40-50 dollars per barrel. This figure was three times higher in the summer. It is a visible result of the global economic crisis. But in spite of all these Azerbaijan has determined the price of oil in its 2009 budget as 70 dollars per barrel. Well, this is completely absurd. According to trusted economic experts if oil price decreases 10 dollars per barrel that will cause Azerbaijan's budgetary revenue to lose 3 billion dollars. Now, the price in budget is fixed at 70 dollars per barrel, while the market price is bellow 50 dollars. This means that such a 20 dollars difference will cost Azerbaijani budget 6 billion dollars. Many oil producing countries have made correction to their budgets. For instance, Kazakhstan has fixed the oil price in its 2009 budget at 40 dollars per barrel, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria at 45 dollars. Other countries have done the same, except Russia. Russia kept the price of oil at 70 dollars per barrel in its 2009 budget, so the Azerbaijani government followed the suit, which shows that it has no policies of its own. Here too Azerbaijan imitates Russia. The government has this confidence that any deficit can be covered with the resources from the Oil Fund. There is no doubt that the Oil Fund is an airbag for our economy today, but it is not possible to sleep on it for long. Oil Fund's financial resources are not infinite. What are we leaving for our future generations? How will we meet problems to come in the future? Oil is an exhaustible resource. What is going to happen when it runs out? Is it really necessary to spent and destroy everything today? After all, these are the riches of the nation. Such a behaviour of the government is a grave irresponsibility and crime against the nation and its future generations. The government today does not feel itself answerable to the people. There are two parallel worlds in Azerbaijan: the authorities live for themselves, the nation for itself. The nation drowns in its numerous problems, while the authorities celebrate. Such things end quite badly. There are no exceptions to this in history. Irresponsible governments, which act regardless of the will of the people, have no future, and their fate will be tragic for themselves. It is an historical lesson. We must learn from this lesson. If the government cannot understand this, then it is still in a state of euphoria. This euphoria, however, is also based on the petrodollars. Today, the government neither sees the global processes, nor wishes to listen to analyses. I think that they will come out of this euphoria soon, because the crisis already can be felt in Azerbaijan. There will be graver consequences the next year. Maybe the government will be able to come out of its euphoria then. But I am afraid that it might be too late. - The financial crisis is also as a political process. In your view, which countries will come out of this process victorious, and which will come out defeated? - The notion "crisis" in Chinese consists of two hieroglyphs, of which one means danger and another - opportunity. That is crisis is a danger, but also an opportunity, a chance. No doubt powerful states will this chance wisely and come out even stronger, as has always happened. This is not the first global financial crisis. Weaker states like Azerbaijan, on the other hand, are unable to come out of such crises quickly and sink so low that the process of rehabilitation becomes arduous and very long. Such an economical decline in its own right brings to political changes and often to political unrest. This is also history. We have not invented this. It can be so in Azerbaijan too. If the government comes to its sense, stops thinking about such superficial matters as life-long presidency, starts quickly to solve the country's numerous problems, we can guarantee ourselves from political unrest. - How is the situation with the negotiations within the opposition? Would you comment on the different position of the Musavat Party? If the negotiations do not yield results, what will be the next step? - Negotiations continue in order to achieve unity. I think that those who want unity will unite anyway. We can see it today by example of the Azadliq Political Bloc, which has been created based on sincere relations. It is a very stable Bloc, which is already three years old. In general, persons who want unity will unite, and those who do not want unity will not. So, I see no reason for any further comments.

Fizza Heydarli