seçki etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
seçki etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster

11 Aralık 2019 Çarşamba

Parlament anaxronizmi

Parlament anaxronizmi
Müsahibə 

2019 Dekabr 07 ( Şəmbə )  12:29:55

ASTNA.biz
Dekabrın 5-də prezidentin sərəncamı ilə Azərbaycanda 2020- ci il fevralın 9-na növbədənkənar parlament seçkiləri təyin edildi. Dekabrın 4-də Azərbaycan Konstitusiya Məhkəməsi Milli Məclisin parlamentin buraxılması və növbədənkənar parlament seçkiləri keçirilməsi xahişi ilə ölkə prezidentinə müraciətinin Konstitusiyaya uyğun olduğunu təsdiq edib.Parlamentinin buraxılması təşəbbüsünü hakim Yeni Azərbaycan Partiyası irəli sürüb, bunu islahatları dəstəkləmək və Milli Məclisin tərkibini yeniləmək zərurəti ilə əsaslandırıb.Dekabrın 2-də parlament bu təşəbbüsü dəstəkləyib və prezidentə müvafiq müraciəti qəbul edib. Bir sözlə, Azərbaycanda 5-ci çağırış Milli Məclis buraxıldı və çox yaxın zamanda növbədənkənar parlament seçkiləri gözlənilir. Görəsən, bütün bunlar niyə baş verir? Parlamentin tez-tələsik buraxılmasının səbəbi nədir? Və bütün bu proseslər Konstitusiyaya və qanunvericiliyə uyğun baş verirmi?Müstəqil hüquqşünas Ələsgər Məmmədli prosesin hüquqi və siyasi tərəfləri barədə ASTNA-nın suallarını cavablayıb.
***
-Ələsgər bəy, hakim Yeni Azərbaycan Partiyası parlamentin buraxılması təşəbbüsünü irəli sürdü, bunu islahatları dəstəkləmək və Milli Məclisin tərkibini yeniləmək zərurəti ilə əsaslandırdı. Hakim partiyanın belə bir təşəbbüslə çıxış etmək səlahiyyəti varmı?
-Siyasi baxımdan Yeni Azərbaycan Partiyasının proqramını həyata keçirmək üçün hansısa addımlar atması təbiidir və mümkündür. Hüquqi baxımdan bu, mübahisələndirilə bilməz. Bu, siyasi konyektur, ehtiyac baxımından qiymətləndirilə bilər. YAP belə bir siyasi çıxış edə bilər ki, o, tutalım ki, parlamentdə mövcud olan millət vəkillərini yeniləmək istəyir. Amma istənilən siyasi çıxış nəticə etibarı ilə bir arqumentə söykənməlidir. Həmin arqument əsaslı olmalıdır.  YAP-ın “prezident islahat aparır, parlament bu addımlarla ayaqlaşmır” arqumenti kifayət qədər inandırıcı bir iddia deyil və cəmiyyət bu iddiaları qəbul etmir. Normalda hər kəs görür ki, parlamentin, ümumiyyətlə, fəaliyyəti prezidentinkindən daha sürətlidir. Yəni, prezidentdən gələn bütün qərarlar heç bir sorğu olmadan, əleyhinə kimsə çıxmadan, hətta 100 faiz səslə parlamentdə qəbul olunur.  Hətta həmin 100 faizə əsasən özünə bitərəf deyənlər də daxil olur. Eyni zamanda hətta müxalif partiya kimi və ya digər partiya kimi parlamentdə qeydiyyatdan keçmişlər də həmin qərarların əleyhinə çıxmayıblar və ya bitərəf qalmayıblar. Dolayısı ilə belə bir siyasi qərara ehtiyac yox idi və əsaslandırılmamışdı. Amma, ümumiyyətlə, əgər belə bir ehtiyac hiss edirdilərsə, bunun yolu ilk növbədə bir siyasi partiya kimi özünün qurultayında və ya səlahiyyətli orqanında qərar qəbul etmək idi. Sonra həmin qərarı öz üzvləri olan millət vəkillərinə təqdim etmək idi. Həmin üzv millət vəkilləri parlamentin erkən seçkiyə getmək mühitini  hüquqi baxımdan formalaşdırmaq üçün bir hissəsi və ya hamısı fərdi olaraq  istefa verə bilərdi. Həmin istefa ərizələri Milli Məclisdə qiymətləndirilib, Mərkəzi Seçki Komissiyasına təqdim olunandan sonra MSK-nın qərarı ilə onların millət vəkilliyi statusu ləğv olunardı. Beləliklə də parlamentdə 83 və daha yüksək səs çoxluğu ilə qərar qəbul etmə və parlamentin, ümumiyyətlə, yetərsay olma baxımından lazım olan millət vəkili sayı azalmış olardı. Bu halda prezidentə parlamenti buraxma hüququ verən Konstitusiyanın 98-1-ci maddəsinin şərti formalaşardı. Və bu proses Konstitusiyaya uyğun şəkildə baş verərdi.
-Dekabrın 2-də parlament hakim partiyanın təşəbbüsünü dəstəklədi  və prezidentə müvafiq müraciəti qəbul etdi. Elə həmin gün dövlət başçısı parlamentin müraciətinin Konstitusiyaya uyğunluğunun yoxlanılması üçün Konstitusiya Məhkəməsinə sorğu göndərdi. Azərbaycan Konstitusiya Məhkəməsi dekabrın 4-də Milli Məclisin parlamentin buraxılması və növbədənkənar parlament seçkiləri keçirilməsi xahişi ilə ölkə prezidentinə müraciətinin Konstitusiyaya uyğun olduğunu təsdiq edib. Sizcə, bütün baş verənlər Konstitusiyaya və ya qanuna uyğun olaraq baş verirmi?
-Konstitusiya Məhkəməsinin verdiyi qərarın hüquqi baxımdan əsaslandırılması, ümumiyyətlə, yoxdur və verilən qərar siyasi qərardır. Çünki Konstitusiya Məhkəməsi Konstitusiyanın bütün müddəlarına uyğun və sadiq olan şərh verə bilər. Konstitusiyanın müddəaları dedikdə prezidentin parlamenti buraxması ilə bağlı 98-1-ci maddənin şərtlərinin mövcud olub-olmadığı yoxlanmalı idi. Yoxlanılmadı,  tam tərsi YAP-dan olan millət vəkillərinin müraciətini parlamenti buraxmaq üçün yetərli hesab etdi. Sadəcə, burada yenə Konstitusiya Məhkəməsinin əslində funksiyasına aid olmayan bir məsələ müzakirə olundu. Hansı ki  prezident bunu ondan istəməmişdi. Bu da parlamentin, ümumiyyətlə, buraxılması halında onun funksionallığının saxlanması məsələsi idi. Bu, ümumiyyətlə, hüquqi məntiq baxımından keçərsiz bir ifadədir. Çünki parlament yararsız olduğu üçün buraxılırsa, o zaman parlamentin funksionallığını saxlamaq və onu seçki gününə qədər səlahiyyətli saxlamaq məntiqli və hüquqauyğun yanaşma deyil. O, ayrı məsələdir ki, bu, krizis yaradır. Bu, doğrudur. Çünki prezidentin parlamenti buraxması özlüyündə Konstitusiyanın bütünlüyünə zidd bir müddəadır. 2016-ci il referendumu ilə Konstitusiyaya prezidentə bu səlahiyyəti verən müddəa əlavə olunub. Bu, özü parlamentin funksionallığını zədələyən məqamdır. İndiki halda bunu guya Konstitusiyanın 111 və 112-ci maddəsi ilə əlaqələndirdilər.  Həmin maddələrə görə, fövqəladə vəziyyət və müharibə vəziyyəti elan ediləndən sonra 24 saat içində  prezident bu qərarı Milli Məclisə təqdim etməlidir, parlament də onu ya qəbul, ya da rədd edə bilər. Əgər qəbul edərsə, parlament buraxılarsa, belə bir situasiyada parlament yox ikən ciddi şəkildə dövlət krizisi yarana bilər. Və dövlət böhranı yaranmasın deyə Konstitusiya Məhkəməsi guya buna da bir açıqlama gətirib. Mövcud Məclisi qanun və qərar qəbul etmədən, sadəcə, istisna halda lazım olarsa toplanma və beynəlxalq təmsilçiliyi davam etməyi qərara aldı. Yəni, Avropa Şurasının yanvarda nəzərdə tutulan qış sessiyasında təmsil etmək hüququ saxlanma şərti istisna olmaqla digər halda parlamenti buraxmış hesab etdi. Baş verən prosessual hüquq baxımından da, məzmun baxımından da Konstitusiyaya zidd baş verdi.
-Əslində prosedur necə olmalı idi? Konstitusiyaya və ya qanunvericiliyə uyğun olaraq parlament hansı halda buraxıla bilərdi? Və ya növbədənkənar parlament seçkisi hansı halda elan oluna bilərdi?
-Konstitusiyada parlamentin buraxılması üçün hökmən birincisi siyasi böhran yaşanmalıdır. Parlamentdə ciddi şəkildə fikir ayrılığı yaranmalıdır.  Ya prezidentdən gələn qanun təklifləri zamanında müzakirəyə çıxarılmasın (bu normalda iki ay və ya istisna hallarda təcili elan olunubsa 20 gün) və yaxud da prezidentə imzalanmaq üçün 14 gün içərisində göndərilməli olan qanunlar həmin müddət çərçivəsində göndərilməsin. Bu zaman parlamentin funksionallığı zədələnir.  Digər hal isə Konstitusiyanın 98-1-ci maddəsində aydın şəkildə göstərilib. Bu, prezident tərəfindən təklif olunan baş nazirin iki dəfədən artıq səsvermə zamanı təsdiq olunmaması və yaxud Mərkəzi Bank sədrinin, baş prokurorun təsdiq olunmaması. Bu, Konstitusiyada aydın şəkildə göstərilən hallardır. İndiki situasiyada məhz siyasi baxımdan, yəni funksionallıq baxımından prezidentin göndərdiyi təkliflərdən imtina edən və yaxud onu ləngidən hər hansı bir vəziyyət yoxdur. Nə də belə bir şərt hüquqi baxımdan formalaşmayıb. Bu baxımdan növbədənkənar parlament seçkisinin elan olunması hüquqi çərçivədə mümkün deyildi. Amma bu, baş verdi.
-Bu formada tez-tələsik parlamenti buraxmaq, növbədənkənar seçki keçirmək nəyə görə lazım idi? İqtidar niyə bunu edir?
-Üst-üstə götürsək, yeni seçkinin elan olunmasına 9 aydan bir az artıq vaxt qalmışdı. Bu 9 ayı gözləmədən belə bir addım atmasının səbəbi, ictimaiyyətə açıqlanan səbəb keçərli deyil. Çünki deyildiyi kimi, parlament prezidentin addımları ilə ayaqlaşa bilməsəydi, o zaman parlamentin sədri Oqtay Əsədovun elan etdiyi kimi il ərzində 1700-dən artıq qərar və qanun qəbul etməzdi. Bu, həqiqətən rekorddur. Belə bir rekorda imza atan bir parlamentə hansısa bir islahatı zəiflədir deyilməsi keçərli arqument deyil. Bu, daha çox hakimiyyətin üst səviyyədə əl dəyişməsinə hazırlanan bir prosesdir. Bu, heç kimə sirr deyil ki, hakimiyyətin üst ranqlı məmurlarının bir çoxu artıq göndərilib. Bura Prezident Administrasiyasının rəhbəri, ictimai-siyasi şöbənin rəhbəri daxildir. Eyni zamanda digər önəmli postlardakı insanların rolu cəmiyyətdə azaldılıb. Keçən parlamentdə qanunvericilikdə rəsmi şəkildə belə bir şey nəzərdə tutulmasa da, faktiki olaraq hamı bilirdi ki, parlamentdəki təmsilçilik daha çox oliqarxların cəmiyyətdəki təmsilçiliyinə uyğun formalaşdırılmışdı. Həmin o vurulan, işdən azad olunan, artıq idarəetmədən uzaqlaşdırılan şəxslərin dolaylı olaraq təsdiqlədikləri şəxslərin parlamentdə oturması arzuolunan deyil. Artıq parlamentə yeni komandanın təmsilçilərinin oturdulması düşünülür. Çünki bizdə parlament formalaşarkən cəmiyyətin iştirakçılığı ən geri planda olan məsələdir. Əsasən seçki yuxarıdan hazır siyahıların təqdim olunması və MSK-nın siyahıya uyğun şəkildə seçkini qeyri- şəffaf və qanuna zidd şəkildə formalaşdırması ilə yekunlaşır. Bu da onu göstərir ki, yaxın vaxtlarda ən üst şəkildə dəyişiklik baş verəcək və onun istəyinə uyğun parlamentin formalaşması siyasi tərcihdir. Və bu reallaşır.
-Ümumiyyətlə, parlament həqiqətənmi gedən proseslərlə ayaqlaşa bilmirdi?
-Dediyim kimi, vurulmuş məmurların “təmsilçiləri” olan deputatlar (bir çox hallarda bunlar çoxluq təşkil edirdi), uzun müddətdə prosesi arzulamayan ola bilərlər. Düzdür, onların formal olaraq yenə də prezidentə, onun apardığı bu dəyişimə ya yerdəyişmə siyasətinə ayaq uydurduqları görünür. Amma ola bilsin ki, arzuları və istəkləri daxillərində o yöndə deyil. Hər halda ən azından burada bir əminlik yaradırlar. Çünki parlament nəticə etibarı ilə önəmli bir institutdur. Və parlamentin əlində prezidentin impiçment edilməsi kimi səlahiyyət var. Belə olan halda həmin parlament hansısa anda hökumətin üst səviyyədə boykot edilməsinə və ya müəyyən problem yaşamasına gətirib çıxara bilər. Oradakı çoxluq arzu olunmayan çoxluqdursa. Yəqin bu,  parlamentin buraxılmasında rol oynadı.
-Bu dəfəki seçkilərdən nə gözləyirsiniz? İqtidarla, hakim partiyanın atdığı addımlarla ayaqlaşan parlament formalaşa biləcəkmi? Və sizin həmin parlamentdən gözləntiləriniz nədir?
-Bu seçkidən nə prosedur baxımdan ciddi bir şəkildə fərqli dəyişiklik gözləyirəm, nə də formal olmasa da əsas baxımından. Çünki mövcud seçki eyni ilə 2003-ci ildə qəbul olunan Seçki Məcəlləsi və 2005-ci ildə formalaşan seçki komissiyaları ilə həyata keçirilir. Faktiki olaraq eyni icra hakimləri, eyni polis strukturu, eyni təhlükəsizlik strukturu və eyni siyasi komanda ilə seçkiyə gedilir. Belə olan halda o gözlənti haradan formalaşa bilər ki, seçki fərqli olacaq? Belə bir impuls verən heç bir addım yoxdur. Hətta son 1-2 aylıq bir prosesi incələdikdə 19 oktyabr hadisələri və ondan öncəki və sonrakı sərbəst toplaşma ilə bağlı, siyasi fəaliyyətlə bağlı piket cəhdləri çox aydın şəkildə göstərdi ki, hökumətin xüsusi ilə rəqiblərə və siyasi mübarizə istiqamətinə yönələn hər hansı bir dəyişikliyi yoxdur. Tam əksinə, daha aqressivdir. Əvvəllər bu qədər aqressiv deyildi. Hətta 2-3 həftə ərzində prezidentin son açıqlamalarına diqqət etsək, daha çox müxalifətə yönələn nifrət nitqindən  istifadə edib. Bu da dəyişimin nəinki müsbət, hətta mənfi istiqamətdə getdiyini göstərir. Qaldı ki, parlamentin iqtidarın atdığı addımlarla ayaqlaşmasına, partiya heç bir addım atmır. Partiya prosesdə yoxdur. Sadəcə, üst səviyyədə, prezident və ya vitse-prezident səviyyəsində dəyişikliklərin təqdimatı və icrası var. Amma bunların hətta partiya ilə məsləhətləşmədiyi aydın şəkildə bəllidir. Pariyanın özünün əsas funksioner olan şəxslərinin son açıqlamalarından hiss olunur ki, partiya bu proseslərdə yoxdur. Arif Rəhimzadənin parlamentdəki “məgər biz yararsızıqmı ki, özümüzü buraxırıq” deyərək etdiyi son etirazı və bunu ciddi şəkildə mübahisələndirməsi, Oqtay Əsədovun isə guya onu sakitləşdirirmiş kimi göstərib, amma eyni zamanda altdan sətiraltı parlamentin proseslərə ayaq uydurduğunu deməsi və il ərzində 1700-dən çox qanun layihəsini qəbul etməsini deməsi bunu sübut edir. Sadəcə, onun rəsmiləşdirilməsində formal bir qatar rolu oynayır. Amma bu proseslər partiyadan formalaşmır. Bunu göstərən hər hansı bir ipucu yoxdur. Yeni formalaşan parlament adil, ədalətli formada formalaşmırsa, komissiyalar tərəfindən obyektiv bir seçki sistemi ilə keçirilmirsə, ümumiyyətlə, seçkiyə aid normalar, standartlar ATƏT-in müşahidə missiyasının, Venesiya Komissiyasının tələbləri çərçivəsində formalaşmırsa, oradan formalaşacaq parlamentin də hansısa formada böyük bir gözlənti yaradacağını düşünmürəm.

Mənbə: http://www.turan.az/ext/news/2019/12/free/Interview/az/85726.htm?fbclid=IwAR2m0bZjbyxRIYdhTHnRFvdgedSAuHWxjQKvo9oVKr2At6t9Qxi-hhI4eS0 

7 Ekim 2015 Çarşamba

İctimai Yayımın illik gəlirləri 371 milyon 884 min 680 manat təşkil edirmi?

 Bir dəqiqə= 3540 manat!! 

Bu gün İctimai televiziya və radio Yayımları ŞİRKƏTİ  Parlament seçkilərində pullu təşviqatın qiymətini açıqlayıb. Bir dəqiqəsi 3540 manata (ƏDV daxil olmaqla) prime-time qiymətidir. Ən aşağı qiymət isə saat 11:50-də olan qiymətdir; dəqiqəsi 1416 manat.

Bu yazını yazmaya da bilərdim. Amma bəzi azsaylı insan dairəsi bilir ki, bu ölkədə normal ictimai yayımın formalaşması üçün kənardan ən çox cəhd edənlərdən biri olmuşam. Heç vaxt qərəzlə məsələyə yanaşmamışam. Həmişə çalışmışam ki, stəkanın dolu tərəfini göstərib, doluya tamamlamağa yardım edim. Odur ki, bu yazını tarixə düşən bir not kimi yazıram. Bilirəm ki, mənim bu fikirlərim heç nəyi dəyişməyəcək. Dəyirman bildiyini edəcək. Amma, vicdan sahibi olanlar əminəm ki düşünəcək...düşünəcək.. və düşünəcək...
İctimai Teleradionun yaranmasındakı məqsədi gərək onu idarə edənlər (Baş Direktor və onun direktorlar Şurası) və nəzarət edənlər (Yayım Şurası) tam dərk etsinlər. Bunu dərk etmədən, ictimai yayım yaratmaq və yaşatmaq olmaz.
Hazırda İctimai yayım ağır böhran keçirir. Bu gün Sentyabr ayının prime-time vaxtının seçkilər öncəsi monitorinqini əldə etmişəm. Burda qiymətləndirməyəcəyəm, o ayrı mövzudur. Amma bir kəlmə ilə vahimdir.

Keçirəm əsas mərama; nədən siyasi təşviqatın ödənişli vaxtının qiyməti astronomikdir? Bu qiyməti kim, hansı kriteriyaya görə müəyyən edib? İctimai Yayımın istədiyi qiyməti müəyyən etmək hüququ varmı, bu legitim sayıla bilərmi? Qiymət yaratmaq üçün hansı kriteriyalar nəzərə alına bilərdi?

İlk olaraq gərək İctimai yayımı tənzimləyən Qanunda göstərilən məqsədə baxaq.
“İctimai televiziya və radio yayımının məqsədi Azərbaycan Respublikası əhalisinin - bütövlükdə cəmiyyətin, habelə onun ayrı-ayrı təbəqələrinin sosial, elm, təhsil, mədəniyyət, əyləncə və digər sahələrdəki ümumi maraqlarını təmin etməyə, söz və fikir azadlığını, müxtəlif baxış və əqidələri əks etdirməyə yönəlmiş, doğru məzmunlu, tarazlaşdırılmış informasiyalar hazırlamaq, bu informasiyaları müasir texniki və keyfiyyət standartlarına uyğun şəkildə yayımlamaqdır.”-
Siz məqsədlər arasında “yaxşı pul qazanmaq”, “kommersiya ilə məşğul olmaq”, “efiri satmaq” bəndlərinə haqlı olaraq rastlayamazsınız. Çünki, ictimai yayımın belə bir məqsədi yoxdur və ola da bilməz.
Həmin Qanunun 3-cü maddəsində 9 yayım prinsipi sayılıb.
 3.0.1. müstəqillik;
3.0.2. informasiyanın tərəfsizliyi, qərəzsizliyi və doğru-dürüstlüyü;
3.0.3. plüralizm və dözümlülük;
3.0.4. açıq siyasi maraqlardan uzaqlaşma;
3.0.5. ümumi maraqların uzlaşdırılması və təmin edilməsi;
3.0.6. milli özünüdərkin inkişaf etdirilməsi;
3.0.7. universallıq;
3.0.8. rəngarənglik;
3.0.9. başqalarından fərqlənmə.
 Bu 9 prinsipin hər hansı birində “gəlir əldə etmək”, “mənfəət güdmək”- kimi prinsiplər yoxdur. Amma əvəzində həsrət qaldığımız “plüralızm”, “informasiyanın tərəfsizliyi”, “başqalarından fərqlənmə”... prinsipləri  var.
Minimum əmək haqqı 105 manat olan ölkədə; vətəndaşının 43200 dəqiqəsinə 397 manat (1 dəq=0,009 qəpik) aylıq orta əmək haqı ödənən ölkədə; 6 illik lisenziyanı 1000 manata əldə edən televiziyalar 1 dəqiqəlik efirə 3540 manat tələb etməsi normaldırmı? Xüsusilə, Qanunun 5-ci maddəsinə görə (maddə 5. İctimai yayım fəaliyyətinə dövlət tərəfindən müddətsiz və ödənişsiz lisenziya verilir və tezlik ayrılır)- bir qəpik lisenziya və tezlik üçün xərci çıxmadan əbədi bu haqqa sahib olan yayımçı belə davranmalıdırmı?
Bəlkə kimsə durub deyə bilər ki, 6-cı maddədə “reklam fəaliyyəti ilə məşğul olmaq”-bir hüquq kimi yayımçıya verilib, bunda nə var ki!  Bəli, bu hüquq verilib. Amma birincisi, bunun olması normal deyil. İctimai yayımın maliyyə təminatı qanun gərəyi dövlət tərəfindən təmin edilib. İkincisi, reklam əmtəə və xidmətin tanıdılmasıdır. Parlamentə seçilmək istəyən şəxs nə özünü əmtəə kimi satmağı, nə də gəlir gərirəcək xidmət təklif etməyi hədəfləmir. Namizəd sadəcə özünü, gələcək platformasını, siyasi baxışlarını, görmək istədiyi ölkəni  seçicisinə anlatmaq istəyir. Bunun adı ictimaiyyətin bilgiləndirilməsi və doğru seçim etməsinə köməkdir. Bu prosesdə məhz İctimai yayıma ciddi yük düşür. Necə ki pulsuz efir vaxtı bu məqsədlə ayrılır, cüzi ödənişli efir vaxtı da müəyyən edilərək, marjinal düşüncələrin cəmiyyətə çatmasında və zamanında siyasi məqamlara yolunun bağlanmasında ictimai yayım vasitə olmalıdır. İctimai yayım öz efirini müxtəlif baxışlı siyasilərin gizlətmək istədikləri tərəflərini cəmiyyətə çatdırmaqda ciddi rol almalıdır. Namizəd özünü, düşüncələrini gizlətmək istəsə belə, məhz jurnalistlər bunu açığa çıxarmaqda vasitəçi olurlar. Demokratik dünya təcrübəsini görmək yetərlidir.

İndi keçək əsas suala, İctimai yayımın efir qiyməti nədir, necə müəyyən edilə bilər?


Bu suala cavab axtaran istənilən şəxs iki yoldan istifadə edə bilər. Birinci yol, İctimai Yayımın efirinə qoyulan dövlət qiyməti. Bəli, döğru eşidirsiz, məhz dövlət illik bir dəyər müəyyən edərək, onun xərclərini əhatə edir. “Azərbaycan Respublikasının 2015-ci il dövlət büdcəsi haqqında” Azərbaycan Respublikası Qanununun tətbiqi barədə Azərbaycan Respublikası Prezidentinin Fərmanının 1.7.2.3. bəndindən görürük ki 2015-ci ildə İctimai Televiziya və Radio Yayımları Şirkətinə verilən mərkəzləşdirilmiş xərclər adı altında maliyyə yardımının miqradı  16 milyon 552 min 800 mant olub. Yəni 24 saat yayımlanan bir televiziya və 24 saat yayımlanan bir radionun bir il ərzində efirdə olduğu saniyələrin miqdarı 63 milyon 115 min 200 saniyədir. Deməli hər saniyəyə dövlət 26,2 qəpik pul ödəyir. Əgər bu meyar əsas götürülsə, ən yüksək qiymət bir dəqiqə üçün 15 manat 74 qəpiyi keçməməlidir. Amma, unutmaq olmaz ki, bu dəqiqələrin dəyərini onsuz da dövlət ödəyir. Deməli, burda televiziyanın məqsədi gəlir qazanmaq yox, xərcləri kompensasiya etmək olmalıdır. Belə olan halda, həmin müddətin mayadəyəri çıxarılaraq, qiymət müəyyən edilməsi də doğru addım olar. Mayadəyəri dövlət tam kompensasiya etdiyindən, teleradio siyasi çıxışlar üçün dəqiqəsi 1 manat müəyyən edilsə belə, bu mənfəətli olacaq.

İkinci yol, illik reklam gəlirlərinin qanunvericiliyə görə reklam vaxtına bölünməsi ilə alınan rəqəm ola bilər. Bir il ərzində televiziya maksimum 104 min 904 dəqiqə reklam üçün vaxt ayıra bilər. Televiziya illik reklam gəlirlərini bu vaxta bölərək, dəqiqənin qiymətini müəyyən edə bilər. Təəssüf ki, İctimai yayımın rəsmi səhifəsində keçən il ərzində teleradionun reklam gəlirlərinə dair heç bir məlumata raslamadım. Odur ki, Teleradioya bir informasiya sorğusu göndərdim. Ümid edirəm ki, 7 iş günü ərzində bu rəqəmi də mənə açıqlamış olacaqlar. Amma bu rəqəm olmasa da indi açıqlanan qiyməti reklam vaxtına vurmaqla müəyyən ehtimal əldə etmək olar. Əgər İctimai Yayımın rəhbərliyi belə bir qiyməti havadan qoymadıqlarını, hansısa maliyyə əməliyyatlarına görə hesabladıqlarını deyirlərsə, deməli illik 104 min 904 dəqiqəlik reklam vaxtını dəqiqəsi 1416-3540 manatdan satmaqla ildə 148 milyon 544 min 064 mantla - 371 milyon 884 min 680 manat arası reklam gəliri əldə edirlər. Bu gəlirdən imtina etməmək üçün yenə bu qiyməti qoyublar.   

1 Eylül 2015 Salı

Research Paper on Improvement of Electoral System in the Republic of Azerbaijan

Research was carried out on the initiative IDI. Autor Alasgar Mammadli

Part I

Research Paper on Improvement of Electoral System in the Republic of Azerbaijan

After the Republic of Azerbaijan declared its independence, a new political system was determined under Constitution of 1995. According to this system, state is the only source of power in the Republic of Azerbaijan. The people is entitled to free and independent self-determination and sovereignly selecting form of self-government. The Azerbaijani people exercises their sovereign right via universal elections – referendum and via their representatives elected on the basis of universal, equal and direct elections by free, secret and individual ballot.

The Constitution provides division of power. The legislative branch of power – Milli Majlis (National Assembly), the head of Executive Power, the president, as well as local self-governing bodies – municipalities are formed via elections and carry out functions within limited periods. Every 5 years, elections to these bodies should be re-arranged, representatives of these bodies should receive mandate from people by democratic and free elections. The constitution-defined fateful issues of the people and the state should be submitted to all-nation vote via referendum and should be accepted only by nation.

Within 20 years since 1995 Constitiution was adopted, the following elections were held: 3 elections to Milli Majlis, held every 5 years (November 5, 2000; November 6, 2005; November 7, 2010), 4 presidential elections (October 11, 1998; October 15, 2003; October 15, 2008 and October 9, 2013), 4 municipal elections (1999, 2004, 2009, 2014) and 3 referendums including the one which adopted the Constitution (November 12, 1995; August 24, 2002; March 18, 2009). Generally, within 4 years, from declaration of Independence on October 18 to adoption of Constitution, there were held 2 referendums (adoption of Independence Act on Otober 29, 1991 and taking away President Elchibey's power on August 29, 1993), 2 presidential (June 8, 1992 and October 3, 1993) and 1 parliamentary (November 12, 1995) elections. So, a total of 21 elections and referendums were held by 16 times since independent Republic of Azerbaijan adopted Constituion.

Except for the outcome of 1992 presidential elections (59.4%), the average votes supporting president equaled 85.5% in next 5 elections, the votes for the government-supported issue equaled 89.76% in recent 5 referendums and balance in National Asenbly was also formed in favor of the government at approximately this percentage.

An outcome of 85-90% is never registered in free and fair elections in democratic and pluralistic societies. Fot this reason, outcome of any election, referendum in our country is not accepted unambiguously and is criticized by local and international election professionals, observation missions, free media bodies. Consequently, the election party introducing itself as mainstream opposition, local political players being against government policy and neutral international observation missions, have not taken election results unambiguously and unconditionally.

Through objective evaluation, some right arguments of this approach are apparent. In free and democratic countries, one side has not enjoiyed crushing superiority for the recent 20-30 years. Taking into consideration recent 5 parliamentary and other elections in Turkey, the vote sustained by the majority- gaining and government- establishing side does not pass an average of 42%. The vote gained by presidents who have won recent 5 presidential elections in USA does not pass 53.22%. During recent 3 elections in France, persons elected as president in the first round gained only 41.56% of the vote. Even in Russian Federation, where democratic institutions have not been fully formed and is evaluated as authoritarian regime, persons elected as president in recent 5 years, gained an average of 62.26% of votes.

Before and after every elections, this scene underlines the problem the electoral system, election legislation, its injustice and non-compliance with democratic principles, non-conduct of democratic elections.
We should be able to come to common grounds, should demonstrate a new view on our criticized election system and its legislative basis, should be able to formalize an election system and legislation accepted and agreed to by everybody, being fair, balanced, respecting democratic principles, minimalizing extra interferences, should be able to conduct elections and referendums being fair, in compliance with law and enabling all political sides to participate. To this end, our election system and legislation should be open to innovation, political sides should be ready to improve and renovate.


Problems connected with constitutional election system
The amendent made to Constitution on August 24, 2002 introduced first change to election system. The majority-prioritized mixed election system combining majority and proportional systems resulted in full transfer to majority system. Prevously, 100 out of 125 members of National Assembly were elected by majority rule, one person from one constituency, the remaining 25 seats were elected from single election constituency by proportionate rule. This proportion was eliminated and replaced by majority election of each deputy seat from one constituency.
The introduction of this system can be evaluated as a heavy damage to the newly-independent country's democracy. Political organization has undeniable role in establishement of democratic political system. Political organization is possible via political parties. Political parties have exclusive role in preparing political staff for a bigger organization – the state. Political preparation at political parties is the beginning of preparation for state governing system. In case political parties do not have place in politcial system, then inclination for collective political activity disappears and personal initiatives come to the forefront. Not accidentally, sympathy for and tendency of joining political parties in Azerbaijan rapidly decreased after election system change in 2002 and elimination of proportional system, carrying significance for political parties. Today, political parties are lagging behind the society's political life. In today's election system, there is no difference among political parties and any individual initiative group. Both can nominate candidates, express support for some candidates, send observers. But they cannot participate in elections as a representative of passive voting right. Thus it is impossible for them to present political platform to society, convince voters to vote for their political course, to their loyalty to implement its political course. Because it has no place in the current system. An elector votes for not any political party, but particular candidate. Individual has no political affiliation. In case he refuses any political course, there is no political and legal supposition about possible political responsibility. There is no legal outcome of political connection with political party. In this case, political party's attractiveness, charm is sentenced to disappear. It's not occasional that no former faction, block, or group remained in the parliament after system change. The parliament is only a non-political gathering of individuals. Non-political because some one third of the parliamentarians declare themselves to be politically nonpartisan and allege they are not linked to any political party, political ideology and organization. Even though parliament is the place of discussion of political views, a significant number of deputies call themselves nonpartisan and claim they are not engaged in political activity. World democratic practice does not and cannot include such an absurd approach as representation of a person without political affiliation in parliament.

Actually, one of the problems is connected with the fact that Constitution adopted in 1995 has no article indicating place of political parties in political system and this is the source of legal problem regarding formation of political parties in society, their activity and place in government. For instance, Article 68 of Turkey's Constitution widely describes establishment of political parties, membership in parties and withdrawal from membership. It points out that political parties are main components of democratic society. Parties are established without getting advance permission and function within Constitution and laws. Separately, the article indicates that it is not acceptable for political parties to encourage change of democrtic society, republican regime, inciting people to crime, discrimination. The Constititution also describes those who cannot become a political party member due to profession. Political parties' receiving necessary financial aid from state is also settled as a constitutional norm.
In a legal system with politically - isolated parties, multi-party pluralist democracy has no chance to be established. Only an election system with active role of political parties can instigate organization of political parties, individuals' engagement in political activity. And only electoral system can encourage multi-partiness, increase parties' political role in society. In a unitary state like Azerbaijan, there is no urgency for majority system to be applied and maintained. There is no disbalance necessitating protection for ethno-national or religious discrimination in disticts. There is no objective case to claim that a Naxcivan-born will not represent Baku or a Kurdamir-born will work against benefits of Sheki population.
In case of proportionate system, there are equal chances for people from all districts like their representation in one political party. The only criterion will be competition in political activity. Political figures and political team being in the forefront and capable to lead the society will have more chance to get votes and to be elected. Thus, political parties will prefer competitive methods rather than some subjective criteria and will form its display during elections in accordance with fully objective criteria. Certainly, one more significant method of its formation will be conduct of inter-party primaries and determine party display in election list.
One of the constitutional interferences in electoral system is the amendment made on referendum dated March 18, 2009. Provision stipulating "No person can be elected President of the Republic of Azerbaijan more than twice" of Section VI of Article 101 of Constitution was excluded from Constitution via the most recent referendum. It paved "legal way" for one person to remain in power for longer term. One person's remaining in power for long term creates inclination for authoritarism in regimes where democratic institutions are under formation and is evaluated as an impediment on the way of forming democratic society. Not accidentally, Vladimir Putin, who has played a significant role in political life of the Russian Federattion, did not nominate for presidential post on 2008, as he had already served for 2 terms and enabled Medvedev to become president. However, his political power, superiority in Duma and public prestige enabled him to amend the Constitution to abolish 2-term limit and occupy presidential post. Not to damage the government's democratic image, he did not choose the way of amending legislation and the existing Constitutional norm was followed.
Changing this norm of the Constitution is one of the factors seriously restricting power transformation via democratic way. Undoubtedly, persons who have long been in power are sometimes undeniably stronger than rivals. For instance, Clinton who was elected US president in 1992, could probably have gathered more votes than George Bush in 2000. But a democratic system obligating power transformation did not considered legitimate in. Not accidentally, the Council of Europe Venice Commission (Commission for Democrary via Law) has declared that "Constitutional restrictions ensuring change of presidents in subsequent terms are of particular significance for countries with not very strong democratic structures and relevant cultural perceptions. According to the opinion of the Venice Commission, the elimination of the restriction means serious setback in the way of Azerbaijan's establishing strong democracy".

Abolishment of constitutional impediments for democratization of electoral system, conduct of new constitutional reform can only add positive values to building democratic society in near future. To eliminate these constitutional obstacles, some very simple steps should be taken:


1.                  A new provision "political parties" should be added to Constitution, constitutional guarantees should be ensured for political parties' role and place in political system, their establishment and finance for their activity. 
2.                  The existing electoral system to the National Assembly in Azerbaijan should be changed completely, the majority system should be absolutely rejected, proportional system should be introduced. During its implementation, staged transfer can also be taken into consideration. 
a.                  In this case, 125 constituencies should be abolished, a unique pond- constituency should be established, votes given to registered and legally- working parties should be collected, divided by deputy seats and a system defining seats for parties should be introduced.
b.                  Taking into consideration the parliament's functioning, the seats in National Assembly can be increased to 200 persons.
c.                   The party lists can also include independent candidates.
 3.                  The previously existing norm of the Constitution should be re-introduced, the new form of the provision should ban one person's repeated candidacy excluding 2 term election irrelevant its consequency.
4.                  To encourage democratic habits in society, participation in elections should be determined not only as a right but also a duty. With exception of political parties’ boycot decisions, those refusing participation should be punished with administrative fine.

General view at Election Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan
Election Code was approved and enforced by the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated 27 May, 2003, N 461-IIQ "On approval and enforcement of the Election Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan". Over the past 12 years, the National Assembly has changed and amended the Election Code by 17 times. They were realized at following dates:

1.       The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan "On making change to the Election Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan" dated November 11, 2003, N 516-IIQD;
2.       The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan "On amending the Election Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan" dated June 8, 2004, N 685-IIQD;
 3.       The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan "On amending the Election Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan" dated October 12, 2004, N 771-IIQD;
4.       The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan "On making amendments and changes to some legislative acts of the Republic of Azerbaijan" dated December 30, 2004, N 819-IIQD;
5.      The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan "On making amendments and changes to some legislative acts of the Republic of Azerbaijan and some legislative acts losing validity " dated March 4, 2004, N 856- IIQD;
6.       The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan "On making changes and amendments to some legislative acts of the Republic of Azerbaijan" dated June 14, 2005, N 938-IIQD;
7.       The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan "On Making changes and amendments to the Election Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan" dated June 28, 2005, N 957-IIQD;
8.      The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated December 23, 2005 N 35-IIIQD;
9.       The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated June 16, 2007, N 385-IIIQD;
10.    The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated June 2, 2008, N 611-IIIQD ; 
11.    The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated December 16, 2008, N 739-IIIQD ; 
12.    The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated March 5, 2010, N 972-IIIQD ;
13.    The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated June 18, 2010, N 1035-IIIQD; 
14.    The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated February 1, 2011,, N  55-IVQD; 
15.    The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated April 20, 2012, N 327-IVQD
16.    The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated April 30, 2013, N 632-IVQD
17.    The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated April 3, 2015, N, 1243-IVQD 

Even though some of these changes were carried out in coordination with different legislative acts, some were broader and more comprehensive. For instance, before 2005 parliamentary elections, changes and amendments were made to 58 provisions by Law dated June 28, 2005, N 957-IIQD. Prior to 2008 presidential elections, 91 amendments and changes, more than those in 2005, were made to the Election Code, through the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated June 2, 2008, N 611-IIIQD. The 3rd significant change was introduced ahead of 2010 parliamentary elections, by Law dated June 18, 2010, N 1035-IIIQD. Then 33 different provisions were changed or amended, or provisions were excluded from the Code. More than 10 corrections, amendments and changes were made to the Code in 2011 and 2012, terms were reduced in particular. Prior to municipal elections of 2014 municipal elections, 4 different changes were made to provisions on municipal elections by Law dated April 30, 2013, N 632-IVQD. Generally, over the past 12 years, amendments, changes and corrections were made to some 200 provisions of the Election Code, or provision was absolutely taken from the Code. However, opinions of political parties, alternative political view carriers, public bodies specialized in electoral sphere, political blocs, international election missions were not taken into consideration before these steps were taken, no public consensus was sought for the changes made. However, within 12 years after the Code was adopted, different political strata, public institutions, associations, lawyers, as well as international and regional organizations, their professional bodies and experts in electoral sphere put forth effective proposals to improve electoral system, to seriously update Election Code, to create socio-political consensus and eliminate public disbelief in elections and its outcome, projects were worked out, put into public discussion, recommendations were introduced. But the side maintaining political will remained closed to these proposals and researches, did not go to serious changes which could create confidence in political sides. The changes to the Code made the existing ones more antidemocratic, restricted opportunities, maneuvers, freedoms, or they were included into legislation for concrete persons. (As it was in the case of Rasul Guliyev). Some of such changes stipulated reduction of election period from 120 to 75 days in 2008, to 60 days in 2010. Correspondingly, term for signature collecting was reduced twice, term of political campaigning from 60 to 22 days, the place for free assembling was reduced to one in each constituency. Campaigning opportunities in state media, elimination of voluntary financial deposit were excluded from the Code.
Generally, there are many objective reasons to revise the Election Code. Main factors necessitating it are establishment of public consensus and political confidence in the society, as well as among political sides, restoration of confidence in free and fair elections considered basis of democracy. 

Terms in Election Code
Reducing the 120-day term to 75 days considered for starting elections and referendums in 2008, to 60 days in 2010, shortening of all electoral procedures accordingly, particularly, reduction of the campaign period to 22 days are the main factors negatively impacting formation of democratic election environment, voters' getting introduced with candidates, their contacts with voters. Separately, shortening of terms is also restricting ways of effective use of vote right, chances of restoring rights by investigating complaints. The OSCE Organization for Democratic Institutions and Human Righs (ODIHR) Election Observation Mission also criticized this point in its December 24, 2013 Final Report. The report reads: "The general term considered in the Electoral Code for conduct of elections has been shortened and at some moments, no sufficient opportunities were provided for conduct of preparation work and use of opportunites envisaged by law... The term for conduct of elections should be increased to provide broader chances for participation of potential candidates and to provide efficiency for management of elections. Particularly, changes should be made to deadlines for effective use of opportunities envisaged by law in certain cases".

To resolve the problem, the terms which existed when the Election Code was adopted should be reinstated. Particularly, the campaign period should not be less than 45 days.

Formation of the election commissions

According to the Election Code, elections and referendums in Azerbaijan are conducted by three-tier election commissions. These Commissions consist of Central Election Commission with 18 members, 125 Constituency Election Commissions (ConECs) with 1125 members and 5,273 Precinct Election Commissions with 31,638 members. The total number of commission members is 32781. One third of all commission members each are proposed by the parliamentary majority, minority, and by independent deputies. By law, all commission chairs are nominees of the parliamentary majority. In practice, representatives of both the parliament majority and independent deputies, as well as representatives of parties being ruling party's "satellite", but seen as "minority" in parliament, support the same political view, take side with not justice, but the political side they represent during adoption of decisions and this deepens disbeleif in elections and their results.


Actually, election commissions conduct not only parliamentary elections, but also all presidential, municipal elections and referendums. In this case, there is no political or legal explanation to give place in commissions for balancing purposes to nonpartisans who do not represent any political side, do not participate in presidential or municipal elections, as well as do not constitute a concrete side in issues taken to referendum. Non-party deputies have supported authorities' candidate in all presidential elections, some have even acted as lawyer of government candidate. At the same time, at March 18, 2009 referendum, they have fully supported the issue the government had put to referendum. In practice, nonpartisans have always been on one side and this side has been beside the government.
As "nonpartisans" do not have concrete structure, organization and representation in constituencies, it's impossible fot them to nominate candidate for representation in ConECs and PECs. Central Election Commission manual on formation of lower commissions explicitly indicates this factor. The instructions read that nonpartisans nominate representatives for ConECs and PECs at meeting of non-partisan citizens’ initiative groups. However, it's practically impossible and this process is implemented directly via executive structures.
This approach has not been limited to only nonpartisans. During the latest referendum, some opposition party leaders represented in CEC, led the groups supporting government's position in referendum, imposed on audience via their TV speeches the necessity of supporting government position. That same referendum included elimination of term limit for president, which paved way for getting away from democratic principles.
This scene is clear indication of the urgency of re- composing election commissions by new principle. No democratic, transparent and fair elections are held without society's and political sides' full confidence in commissions – these claims will always exist. To eliminate the claims once for all, commissions should be re-composed with balanced participation of real political sides. The OSCE ODIHR also mentioned this issue in its December 24, 2013 Final Report: "To increase impartialiy and increase public confidence in the work of election bodies, composition of election commissions should be reviewed at all levels with participation of all interested sides and relevant changes should be made to Election Code".
Also, let's have a look at Joint Opinion of OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission given in 2004
 (#. 286/2004):“Commissions should gain confidence of main interested sides in electoral sphere. To achieve this goal, pro-government forces should not have priority in their composition. Existing conditions and laws do not allow to ensure this”. See: http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/azerbaijan/41715

 All the past elections and referendums have shown that election commissions formed on the basis of existing principles have worked under the monopoly of ruling party, under the control of executive power. The persons assigned for membership in commissions mainly work in government budget-funded sectors – education, health, culture, and subordinated to executive structures. It would be naive to think that they are independent during election period and are subordinated other times.
The European Court of Human Rights has recognized violation of voting right in more than 12 election constituencies, by current election commissions and the Central Election Commission which approves these commissions' decisions. Separately, there are plenty of cases when no decision was adopted, but the government accepted violations and gave compensation. International and independent local organizations conducting monitoring of the past elections, considered none of the elections conducted by these commissions to be in complaince with international standards, fair and objective. Not accidentally, OSCE, which observed 2013 elections, declared that 58% of votes was counted badly or very badly. In general, after every election, independent local institutions and international missions propose re-composing election commisions, in a form that could create confidence in sides.
This fact shows that existence of commissions in the Code-situpaled form has lost legitimacy. Further existence of this nonlegitimate structure will always signify legal and political non-confidence, deepen political non-confidence and polarization in society. 

Taking this into consideration, composition of all election commissions at all levels and positions in election commissions (chair, deputy chair, secretary) should be re-organized in a balanced way, on the basis of equal representation of all political parties (between the government and its supporter and the opposition being in front of government during all political processes or its union). Then the issue of quorum in adopton of decisions could be revised and be adopted by simple majority of vote.

VOTER REGISTRATION

All citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijan over 18 years of age have the right to vote, except those recognized as incapable by a court decision. Voter registration and voter lists are composed on the basis of voters permanent register maintained by CEC.
On the eve of 2013 presidential elections, according to CEC information disclosed in September, 5.016.365 voters were registered. The figure later reached 5.145.592 including those on military service. To the election date in 2013, voter number made 5.214.787, including those on supplementary lists, who specified their names and included into the list. According to the information OSCE/ODIHR Election Monitoring Mission received from State Statistics Committee, the number of population over 18 years of age made 6.800.000 to January 1, 2013.
The difference in numbers provided by two state bodies made 1.600.000. Regretfully, there is no logical explanation to this big difference. This scene underlines the problem of voter registration and its impact on elections. The voter number taking part in the recent presidential elections was 3.735.374. It means, some 42.8% voters against those participating in elections remained undetermined. CEC established site (https://www.infocenter.gov.az/default.aspx) had a search menu for voter list. Voters could search their names in this list. The site management also conducts a poll on the site. They ask a question: "Did you find your name in the list?" Interestingly, 46.55% of the respondents answered "no", 48% answered "yes". This poll also indicates that there is a serious problem with registration of names in the voter list.
A good deal of work has been carried out in Azerbaijan for the recent years in connection with transfer to electronic administration, electronic unique register has been created, legislation has been updated. The site www.e-gov.az is functional. Majority of state bodies have been integrated to this system. The state bodies intensively working with population have been integrated to this system. These bodies are the Interior Ministry, Health Ministry, Education Ministry, State Social Protection Fund, Taxes Ministry, Justuce Ministry, Military Comissariat and others. The information of these bodies is united in unique pool – in e-gov system. The difference between the State Statistics Committee and CEC is surprising against the existence of such infrastructure.
Taking into consideration the state's all opportunities, new amendments should be made to Election Code in connection with voter registration, CEC should automaticaly use citizens unique electronic registration register. This way, the inter-body difference can be eliminated and no voter name will be absent from the voter list.
Free expression of those on real military service in elections is a seriously disputable issue. Practice shows that vote results in polling stations estblished in military units and closed institutions is always 95% in favor of one side. As real military servicemen factually act under orders, there are certain problems in their free expression of themselves. Besides, it's not clear why temporary military servicemen and prisoners should participate in election of a municipality member who carries out function of local self-government or a deputy elected through majority system.
To overcome the problem, relevant changes should be made to legislation, voting right for real military servicemen should be limited while on military service. Separately, prisoners should not be included into voter lists and their participation in elections should be temporarily limited. Shortly, establishment of temporary polling stations in closed institutions should be eliminated.
Voter turnout of 50%+1 should be obligatory in a referendum to be considered valid.
A requirement of 50% voter turnout should be set for presidential, parliamentary and municipal elections.

Nomination and registration process of candidates
According to Election Code, political party or bloc of political parties should adopt a separate decision on candidate nomination for every election constituency in parliamentary and municipal elections, should submit all necesary documents for every constituency. This procedure complicates to a greater extent nomination of candidates by those bodies, makes it difficult and causes extra expenses, increases documentation.
As the working group checking voter signatures supporting candidates and other documents, is not composed of independent experts, registration of potential candidates is illegally rejected. Simultaneously, general character of some provisions on basis of refusing candidate registration, enables gorundless rejection of registration. In practice, no objective unit of measurement is applied while checking the signatures. Those checking randomly declare any signature to be "false" on suppositions, declare several signatures to be false and cross "undesirable" candidates. According to CEC information in 2010, a total of 1412 people over 125 election constituencies took signature sheets for nomination, some 297 of them did not return them, 1115 persons (80%) submitted necessary signatures for registration to Constituency Election Commisions. Some 721 of them (50%) were registered for deputy seat, 394 were rejected. Thus, every 2 out of 3 candidates nominated mainly by political parties were rejected registration. 346 persons out of 394 rejected were participants of 5 political blocs. While 113 out of 115 candidates of ruling party were registred, only 35 of 92 candidates representing "APFP-Musavat" bloc, 33 out of 99 candidates of "Garabagh" bloc and 17 out of 101 candidates of "Democracy" bloc were registered. The registration percent of ruling party was 98.26%, that of blocs was only 28%.
Strict conditions for collecting voter signatures supporting candidate in presidential elections is also one of serious problems. Candidates should collect at least 40.000 signatures, at least 50 from every 60 election constituencies.
The provisions on financial deposit for registration when signatures are not sufficient were excluded from the Code. Consequently, in recent parliamentary elections, 72% candidates of political parties and blocs were not registered and were artificially removed from political competition. However, a high number submitted signature lists to constituency commissions during 2005 parliamentary elections, only 8% of candidates was registered.
One voter giving only one signature also causes serious problem at elections. Competition of candidates ensures democracy in elections. Big number of alternatives increases chance of right choice. Thus, one person's supporting more than one candidate impacts democratic environment only positively. Separately, supporting contestants is an issue not included in voting process and not impacting it. In case you support more than one contestant, you will finally vote for one candidate. But supporting democratic election environment, more than one contestant will only contribute to promotion of developing democracy.


To eliminate the above-mentioned problems, registration of candidates nominated by political parties and bloc of political parties in parliamentary and municipal elections, should be conducted on the basis of candidates list approved by political parties and bloc of political parties. The names of candidates on constituencies included in the decision should be submitted to CEC when elections start. ConECs should not demand an additional decision from political parties and party blocs. Separately, CEC should be able to directly use register information of political parties at Ministry of Justice, no registration document should be required from the sides.
Voter signatures supporting candidate at presidential candidates shold be collected without any quorum, voters should have right to give signature for more than one candidate. Registered political parties with organizations in at least 20% of ditsricts and their blocs should have right to put forth candidates.
The working group checking accuracy of candidate registration documents should be composed of independent experts, basis for refusing registration should be concrete and registration deposit should be applied for an alternative variant to registration. Checking accuracy of voter signatures should be excluded from the Code for being absurd.
A voter supporting a candidate should simply submit ID number instead of signature, and it should be enough as a person's consent. Separately, opportunites for applying electronic signature should be expanded, platform for online support for a candidate should be created within www.e-gov.az system.


Pre-election campaign
Pre-election campaign, right to freely assemble and media participation in campaigning

Pre-election campaign is one of the significant phases of election process in elections and referendums. In this phase, candidates explain to their voters economic, social and political programs they will realize in case of election and try to gain their votes. From this viewpoint, campaiging process is the most colorful phase of elections. But as OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission indicated in 2013 report "the concept of pre-election campaigning and its description by election bodies should not restrict political actors' engagement in political activity aside of official campaining period, or press should not impose restrictions on covering ordinary election processes".
Campaiging is conducted via different means during elections. The first one can be called physical contact, assemblying freely in the same place. In this case, candidates are meeting with voters, organize meetings, prepare and distribute ads and calendars, prepare and distribute to voters booklets, discs, or personally meet every voter and declare purposes.
The second and most important method during campaigning is delivering goals to voters via means of mass media. There are serious problems in the use of both campaigning ways.


Use of the right of freedom of assembly
The Election Code's setting only 22 days for pre-election campaign does not physically enable to conduct wthin this period all forms of campaiging (meetings with voters, mass gatherings, campaigning in print and electronic media). Chances to use the right to freely assemble and establish direct contacts with voters are restricted taking into consideration 70 district centers and cities, over 4.500 villages and settlements in the country. Particularly, it is more difficult during presidential elections and referendums when campaigning should be conducted all over the country. This aspect also restricts political parties' chance to show respect for the country population and meet them during parliamentary elections. The election period being very short term, along with recent general and abstract provisions included into the "Law on Freedom of Assembly" and Election Code, have excluded freedom of assembly as a right and has introduced this right as an exception and opportunity subject to restrictive permission system.
The biggest obstacle on the way of implementation of freedom of assembly is the Law "On Freedom of Assembly" adopted on November 13, 1998 and later decorated with restrictice norms. The law creates clear impression that its goal is to restrict the right not to regulate it. As if this law is considered for preventing from implementing the right to freely assemble envisaged in Constitution. The Constitution Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on regulating human rights and freedoms in the Republic of Azerbaijan was not adopted in 1998, the date when this law was adopted. Generally, it was not possible then to impose restrictions by any law except for the cases envisaged in the Constitution itself –war, military situation, emergency situation, as well as mobilisation. Despite this, the law includes several restrictions and most of them are contrary to Constitution and article 11 of the Convention.
Article 6 of the Law bans foreigners and persons without citizenship to be organizer of peaceful gatherings with political purposes. However, Constitution has recognized the right "for everybody" and has not implied restriction for anybody.
According to Article 8 (IV) of this Law, "holding a peaceful assembly of political content can be prohibited by the decision of the relevant body of executive power on the eve and during the period of carrying out international events of state importance on the territories of cities and regions where they are conducted”. This norm also directly contradicts Constitution and article 11 of the Convention. The concept of preparation period is generally an elastic notion and is an artificial way to restrict human rights.


Article 9 of the Law is absolutely against Constitution and Article 11 of the Convention. Section III of the article reads: "Conducting gatherings, meetings, demonstrations and street processions can be prohibited in a radius of 200 meters around buildings housing legislative, executive and court power of the Republic of Azerbaijan". The restriction here does not include any urgency for democratic society, or protection of any other right and freedom. People's constituional rights have been brutally restricted without any grounds.
The non-allowance to use freedom of assembly envisaged in Section VI of Article 9 in places other than the specified, the hour restriction norms in section VII for gatherings also contradict Constitution and Article 11 of Convention. Particularly, Law has charged relevant executive body to approve places for free gatherings and directly authorized it to interfere in place and targets of citizens' ability to exercise this right. In practice, every constituency has one pre-approved place for assembly during election period and regretfully, places not suitable for social gatherings are more remarkable in list. For years, the right to freely assemble has been brought to the form of right used simply during elections, absolutely forbidden or seriously restricted in later periods. Most of political parties cannot exercise this right in post-election period and remain subject to relevant executive body’s "generosity". Exercizing this right without prior consent is absolutely banned.
Evaluation of legislation gives grounds to note that even though the Constitutional norm regulating freedom of assembly was satisfactory, the Constitutional Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan "On regulation of implementation of human rights and freedoms in the Republic of Azerbaijan" adopted by the National Assembly on December 24, 2002, contradicted the Constitution, carrying the same legal force with the Constitution, and created conditions to restrict several moments connected with human rights, further restricted these rights. The Law "On Freedom of Assembly" adopted November 13, 1998, does not generally meet the requirements of either the Constitution, or the Constitutional law adopted in 2002, or Article 11 of the European Convention "On protection of human rights and main freedoms" ratified by National Assembly in 2001. There is great urgency to revise the law to include provisions protecting essence of freedom.
 Article 49 of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan regulates freedom of assembly. The Constitution stipulates freedom of assembly for everybody. It says "everybody", and the notion should be accepted as including not only Azerbaijani citizens, but also everybody living in the country irrelevant of citizenship, as well as the persons without citizenship. Section 2 of the Article reads: "Everybody is entitled to live peacefully, armlessly, hold gatherings, meetings, demonstrations, street processions, pickets". The article has directly indicated forms and directions of realization of the freedom of assembly. It has openly stipulated that everybody wishing to freely assemble, is entittled to peacefully and freely assemble by advance warning of the relevant state body. Apparently, "warning relevant state body" does not necessiate "getting permission" for free assembly, it simply enables state bodies to conduct security measures. The side wishing to freely assemble should be able to hold gathering in the place it determines by warning. It shouldn't wait for days for reaction of the relevant executive power to that warning. From this viewpoint, demanding permission from those entitled to freely assemble is contradicting Constitution. The methods and essence of free assembling are also directly indicated in the Constitution. Forms of gatherings have been separately pointed out. Those who wish to freely assemble, can arrange gatherings, meetings, demonstrations, street processions, or pickets. But in all cases, these gatherings should be held in peaceful and armless form.
Separately, Article 11 of the European Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Main Freedoms, ratified by Azerbaijan in 2001, has legally guaranteed the right to Free Assembly and Right to Association. This article specifies:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.


Apparently, the first part of the article describes freedom of assembly and association and the second part discloses on which basis and terms can this freedom be restricted.
The most serious problem in exercising the right to freedom of assembly and association is that legal grounds behind the restrictions are sometimes used for obstructing freedoms. Official bodies' sometimes try to eliminate freedom by referring in practice to restriction not freedom itself.
Article 11 of the Convention is expressing in limited form the cases when states can limit the specified freedom. Limited because the cases are concrete and cannot be expanded through interpretation. It should be particularly realized correctly. Azerbaijan is a state which adopted the Convention and applies jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, and should properly refer this practice together with legislative bodies, also the executive bodies which have to apply these laws and international law rulings. Like any other country which has joined the Convention, Azerbaijan should not refer to other reasons than indicated here while restricting free assembly and should not expand these reasons. Because it had undertaken this as national obligation.
Freedom of association and assembly can be restricted only on the basis of Section 2 of Article 11 of the Constitution. They are:

         for the sake of national secutiry and public order;
          prevention from disorder and crime;
          for protection of health and morality;
         for protection of rights and freedoms of other people;

The last sentence of section 2 of Article 11 of the Convention reads that "this Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State " and has indicated for member countries which professions can have restrictions on freedom of assembly and association.
The logic behind this restriction is that persons involved in armed forces, police and administrative state bodies are administering state bodies and their joining with other purposes would not be in complaince with state administration and protection.
It's impossible to restrict persons' right to freedom of assembly and association in cases other than those indicated above. For instance, it's unacceptable to legally introduce the restriction by state bodies’ workload, insufficiency of sources, proximity of official buildings, others’ right to leisure, arrangement of events and other reasons not indicated separately in Section 2 of Article 11. Because Article 11 of the Convention does not allow bringing such additional reasons and determines a very clear framework.
As clearly see from all the mentioned, restrictive norms in both the Election Code and the Law on Freedom of Assembly which the Code refers to, has brought the right to freely assemble to self-damaging role and is direct violation of constitutional rights, Article 11 of the European Convention, as well as voting rights.
This point is also being criticized in OSCE/ODIHR final Report dated December 24, 2013: "This approach means unnecessary restriction on citizen's right to free assembly. Given that political contestants have limited opportunity to campaign outside of the formal 22-day campaign period, this interpretation further restricted their ability to reach out to voters. Furthermore, contradictions in legal requirements caused confusion among contestants as to the applicable procedures.

In order to further an open campaign environment and in line with previous OSCE/ODIHR recommendations, the restrictive approach of the executive authorities regarding the allocation of official venues for the conduct of the campaign should be reviewed. Contradictions between the Election Code and the Law on Freedom of Assembly on the notification or application for holding a public gathering should be eliminated and candidates should only be required to notify executive authorities of their intent to hold a gathering”.

By recent amendments, the Election Code is limiting the circle of places for election campaign placards during election and referendum campaigning. In pracice, such placards are placed in front of each polling station. As polling stations are mainly located in schools, these campaign placards can be glued only onto boards situated in schoolyards.
Entrance to schoolyards is limited everywhere and school gates are closed at the end of lesson hour, as well as on weekends. Not only voters, but also the persons wishing to stick the campaign materials on these boards during the campaigning, face serious obstacles. Besides, such placards are prohibited to be stick on buildings, facilities and rooms belonging to state, included into state register and considered historical or cultural monuments. Election campaign materials contradicting requirements of the Civic Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan are also prohibited to be glued to buildings and other faciities. The expression "contradicting requirements of Civic Code" is also absolutely indefinite. Because the Civic Code does not include a special requirement on placement of campaign materials.

Distribution and placement of election campaign materials should be absolutely free, technical regulations should not limit or eliminate fundamental voting right. Restricting norms in the Code should be eliminated.

Administrative punishment for right to freedom of assembly
Allongside restricting use of right to free assembly, heavy punishments have been imposed on those exercising this right. Article 298 of the Administrative Offences Code lost its validity by the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan N 462-IVQD dated November 2, 2012 and new regulatory article was added. The article's essence was as follows:
 “Article 298.Violation of the regulations to organize and hold gatherings, meetings, demonstrations, street processions and pickets  
warning is issued and a fine from seven to thirteen manats is imposed for violating legislative  regulations for holding gatherings, meetings, demonstarions, street processions and pickets".

The new article introduced on November 2, 2012 read as follows:
Article 298. Violation of regulations of organizing and holding gatherings
298.1. For the gathering organizer's violating the norm defined by law for holding gatherings, meetings, demonstrations, street processions and pickets -
physical persons are fined from one thousand and five hundred manats to three thousand manats, or according to situation of cases, taking into consideration personality of the violator, community service from two hundred hours to two hundred forty hours or administrative detention of up to two months is applied, official persons are fined from three thousand manats to six thousand manats, legal entities from fifteen thousand manats to thirty thousand manats.
 298.2. For participating in gathering, meetings, demonstraton, street procession or picket organized not in compliance with regulations specified by law –
 fine from three undred manats to six hindred manats, or depending on conditions of the cases, taking into consideration the personality of violator, community service from one hundred and sixty hours to two hundred hours or administrative detention of up to two months is applied.

The most remarkable point here is that while the maximum level of fine was 13 manats in 2012, now the amount has been increased to 30 thousand manats. It has updated the record of all periods and has increased sanction for one article by 2.307 times. They did not сonfine themselves to such a rise of fine, have reinforced the article sanction by community service of up to two hundred and forty hours or administrative sentence of up to two months. The legislators did not confine to this and added a note: "Note: In case actions stipulated in articles 298.1 and 298.2 of this Code include criminal signs, those actions result in criminal responsibility under relevant articles of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan" – thus stipulating execise of right to freedom of assembly as the most dangerous case and criminal action.


For elections to be held free and democratic, for voters to feel themselves comfortable, the way to the right to free assmebly should be open. Whilst people assemble peacefully and do not endanger society, imposition of high amount of fine on them, involving them in obligatory work and limiting their freedoms should be unacceptable. The sanction of this article should immediately be reduced to the level that existed in 2012.
The way of using administrative resources should be unambigiously closed during campaigning, candidates should be deprived of their legally recognized priviledges and opportunities irrelevant of their posts, equality of all candidates should be ensured.
From the start of elections, all reconstruction, construction works, refurbishment of facilities affecting citizen votes, should be banned. Except for cases of accidents, the period of expenditures pre-stipulated in state and local budgets, should be banned from the start day of elections to the day the results are declared.


Means of mass media in elections

Legal framework

Constitution stipulates freedom of expression, press freedom and freedom to obtain information. However, libel remains to be a criminal act with criminal responsibility of imprisonment of up to three years. Article 106 of the Constitution and Article 323 of the Criminal Code prohibits dishonoring or humilating President's honor and dignity and imposes an unnecessary restriction on freedom of expression contrary to international standards. See the following:

         Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, dated 1996 and Sections 13 and 47 of the General Comments of the UN Human Rights Commitee, dated 2011.
          Makhmudov and Aghazadeh vs. Azerbaijan, Application No. 35877/04, Rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), December 18, 2008, Lingens vs Austria, Application  No. 9815/82, ECHR rulings and other cases taken July 8, 1986. 

Besides, civic defamation charges accompanied with disproportional financial sanctions result in de facto shutdown of media outlets. Due to web-pages remaining open and lack of direct censorship, Internet is mostly accepted as free space. However, detentions and persecution of online active persons are on the rise. The recent changes made to the Criminal Code on June 4, 2013, factually applied defamation provisions on Internet information resources. The above changes were adopted even though in September, 2012, the Presidential Administration asked the Venice Commission for help to write the Law on Defamation within the National Action Plan to increase efficiency of protection of human rights and freedoms in Azerbaijan. See: "Opinion on the Legislation pertaining to the Protection against Defamation of the Republic of Azerbaijan" posted on: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2013)024-e    

Besides, on June 12, 2012, the Parliament adopted amendments to laws on "Obtaining information", "State registration and state register of legal entities" and "On commercial secret". The mentioned changes applied within legal framework, imposed unnecessary restrictions on Constitutional rights to obtain information.
OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission also mentioned the issue in its Final Report, December 24, 2013: Consideration should be given to repealing criminal defamation provisions in favour of civil sanctions designed to restore the reputation harmed, rather than compensate the plaintiff or punish the defendant; sanctions should be strictly proportionate to the actual harm caused and the law should prioritize the use of non-pecuniary remedies.

Campaigning in media

Means of mass media have always been the most significant way of campaigning during elections and referendum. Through these means, candidates, political parties and referendum campaigning groups have chance to reach to a major election audience within a short period of time and with less energy, introduce themselves and explain their program and goal.

In comparision with 2003 Election Code, the amendment made June 2, 2008 to the Code further restricted opportunities, media platforms to be allocated for candidates and campaigning groups were limited to public broadcasting. Article 77.1 of the Code in previous edition read that all broadcasters and press outlets established by state bodies, organizations and institutions, financed through state budget, were obligated to allocate equal place for all candidates and referendum campaigning groups. The word "broadcasters" was replaced by "public broadcasters" in 2008 and brought into an absurd form and a seriously significant media platform was seized from the side using passive voting right.

There are a number of broadcasters and media outlets established and funded by state in Azerbaijan. Upon acceptance to the Council of Europe in 2001, Azerbaijan undertook an obligation to abolish Azerbaijan State Television and turn it into Public Television. However, the obligation was not carried out. The State Television and radio was protected, maintained and even expanded. Particularly, after 2008, two more state televisions (Idman Azerbaijan (Sports Azerbaijan) and Medeniyyet Azerbaijan (Culture Azerbaijan)) and two regional TV and radios (Naxcivan State Television and Kanal 35 in Naxcivan) and two regional radios (in Naxcivan) received license and began operating. So the number of state TVs and radios reached 8. Today, ten TV and radios including Public televisions are funded through state budget. Besides, the state is annually allocating soap-operas-assigned millions of manats to private televisions from state budget. These donations are regretfully not spent on publicly- important issues, public contribution to political pluralism.
The government's annual financial aid to media is rising. In 2001, 65.5 million manats was expended on state media from state budget. This sum equaled 76.8 million dollars in 2012, 82.9 million dollars in 2013, 84.2 million in 2014 and 84.8 million dollars in 2015. Even though millions are spent on state media every year, regretfully, these televisions and radios simply serve the government as a means of propaganda. Ways for other political sides to use this opportunity are absolutely closed. There is legal opportunity to campaign only on Public TV and radio. But in practice, the legislative requirement to use this media outlet is used in a limited way. During 2010 parliamentary elections pre-election campaign, curious situation evolved as no party or political bloc other than ruling party had registered candidates from 60 constituencies. In case the requirement of the law was applied, besides 8 state TV and radios in government hands, public televisions and radio should also be given to their disposal. The situation clearly described the injustice of the regulation brought by legislation. Having noticed that no political side except for ruling party was entitled to campaign in public television and radio, ruling YAP refused to campaign alone in public television and radio. CEC put aside requirement of the law, allocated 4- minute broadcast time to all individual candidates, without any legal basis. 

Legislative requirement was again brutally violated when the 4-minute time was allocated. The requirement of article 80.5 of the Election Code "Free broadcasting time should be allocated at a time when broader audience can watch" was violated through CEC joint collaboration with Public TV and Radio management. The campaigning time in television was set at 18:00. It is not "the time when broader audience can watch" televisions. The prime-time for televisions around the world covers from 19:30 to 20:00. Curiously, the end of working time is considered the most listened for radios as radio listeners are mainly in cars. 18:00-20:00 is the most listened time for radios. The legislative requirement for radios was also violated at recent elections and 21:00 was allocated for radio campaiging. So, radio campaign period was set at prime time for TVs and at televisions- at prime time for radios, the purpose was to have as little as possible audience to benefit from campaign process.

Another problem was the volume of weekly campaign time being set at 3 hours. The daily norm did not exceed 25 minutes. Daily use of 25 minutes during 3 weeks makes only a total of 540 minutes. In 2015, the broadcast time Public TV should allocate will makes only 540 minutes. Dividing this figure by the number of registered candidates, one candidate receives only 1 minute within 22 days. In 2010, 540 minutes divided by 741 persons resulted only by 43 seconds for each candidate. In 2005, 2063 candidates had only 15.7 seconds each. Allocating seconds of free broadcasting time to individuals is not effective.

One of the serious problems in pre-election campaign in media is campaiging in private televisions and radios. Legislation allows private televisions and radios to act freely as campaiging platform. As televisions cannot operate freely, they are not interested in election campaigning process. They mainly reject participation in the process. Those participating set abnormal price policy. During the recent elections, televisions set 3000-3500 manat for one minute broadcasting. Even the Public TV price for one minute was not less than 3000 AZN. Official paper "Azerbaijan" set 12.000-20.000 AZN for one election banner. The prices were several times higher than commercial ads prices.
 The reason was due to Election Code not differentiating political campaiginig material from commercial ads for their public significance. Democratic states have very clear norm in this regard. For instance, in USA, political ads should not be higher than the cheapest ads within 24-hour broadcasting. If at 3 A.M., one minute ads costs USD 200, then political ads at prime-time should not cost higher than USD 200. Analysing taxes given by TVs in Azerbaijan, we can witness that commercial ads are bought at very low prices. But political ads are set at extremely high prices. The Election Code should urgently include such a regulation.
The Election Code does not entitle media to express position in connection with elections. Namely this provision restricts televisions' news and other programs to freely inform about campaiging. Besides, Election Code recognizes media as a means in pre-election campaign and as a result, coverage of any campaign is de-facto identified with campaiging in favor of any candidate. It contradicts the Council of Europe relevant recommendations. CE recommendations note that particularly during election period, media and private broadcaster serving public interests, should ensure fair, balanced and impatial coverage of election campaign through discussions, interviews and debates, as well as news and other programs devoted to daily developments. See the Committe of Ministers Recommendations (CM/REC(2007)15) to member states on media coverage of election campaigns:

 OSCE election observation mission report read: "The Election Code should address the right of voters to receive comprehensive and diverse information about political alternatives through the media. Public service media and private broadcasters should be legally obliged to provide fair, balanced and impartial coverage of the election campaign in their news and current affairs programs. Such provisions should be overseen by an independent body competent to conduct media monitoring". 


Generally, OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission's monitoring of recent presidential elections also mentioned that candidates did not have enough access to press, and there was lack of balanced and open exchange of views for political opportunities. Restrictive legal framework and openly disproportional coverage of the incumbent President's activity within campaign period further deepened the inequal conditions for candidates. It contradicts Section 7.8 of 1990 Copenhagen Document of the OSCE and limits voters' opportunity to make informed choice. Section 7.8 of the document requires that "participating states should provide that no legal or administrative obstacle stands in the way of unimpeded access to the media on a non-discriminatory basis for all political groupings and individuals wishing to participate in the electoral process".

Section 7.7 of OSCE 1990 Copenhagen Document also declares the following on campaign period: “Member countries should ensure ensure that law and public policy work to permit political campaigning to be conducted in a fair and free atmosphere in which neither administrative action, violence nor intimidation bars the parties and the candidates from freely presenting their views and qualifications, or prevents the voters from learning and discussing them or from casting their vote free of fear of retribution”.


As a result, the following changes should be made to the Code:
-           provisions requiring registration of candidate in 60 constituencies and provision imposing other limitations should be eliminated;
-           all televisons and radios funded through state budget should allocate broadcast time in election process in an obligatory way;
-           This time should not be less than 1 hour a day for every television and radio and should be only at prime-time;
-            Paid broadcast time at private televisions, as well as public and state broadcasters should have minimum limit, campaign hours should be at prime-time, the highest level of the price should be set lower than the cheapest commecial ad within latest month;

-           The highest price set at periodical press outlets, online resources, sites and other media should be set less than the cheapest commercial ad;
-           From the start day of electons, "election period" regulations should be applied in all TVs and radios, periodicals, other media resources' news policy, both government and opposition should be given equal coverage in news;
-          Balance should be ensured, a press group with equal participation of sides should conduct controlling function;
-           Media bodies violating regulations should receive high fines and in case they do not follow the rules after fines, their broadcasting or publication should be temporarily ceased till the end of the voting day.



REGISTRATION AND WORK OF OBSERVERS IN ELECTIONS

Institute of observation is very significant during elections in terms of realizing elections' transparency principle. Regretfully, observation is impossible without passing through a bureaucratic system via the current Election Code. Actually, only a non-governmental organization wishing to carry out observation mission in elections, should be accredited at the Central Election Commission (CEC). To this end, it should be enough for NGO to submit relevant application and copy of state registration certificate to CEC. CEC should itself be able to have a look at the document’s original through the Justice Ministry electronic registry. NGO itself should determine dispatch of its observers for concrete polling stations and giving them relevant cards. The same regulation should be set for political parties not participating in elections, but wishing to conduct observation.
The Election Code requirement for observers to get registered at relevant election commissions should be applied only to persons who want to observe elections at their own initiatives. Such a rule opens major opportunities for organizations implementing observation mission to express themselves before relevant instances (election commissions, courts, etc.).
Observers of political parties participating in elections and wishing to conduct observation (bloc of political parties) and candidates should not at all get registered at election commissions. The observers appointed by these subjects should conduct observation only with cards given by these subjects. Because those subjects actually get registered at election commissions and re-registration of their observers at election commissions is a repeated procedure.
Requring photo for observation card should be eliminated, because the card is considered valid when submitted together with ID card and for this reason, there is no need for photos.
Observers' rights should be indicated concretely and clearly in legislation, their rights should be expanded, they should be authorised to obtain copies of voter lists, check lists, as well as parallel count of votes.
Legislation should unambiguously specify as obligation reception of opinions and acts compiled on elecion day by observers and submitted to relevant election commissions. Facts indicated in these documents should be checked during the process of determining election results, urgent measures should be taken in case of any grounds, should be referred to as basis in determination of election results.
During voting day, observer should use his/her right to be in voting room of election station at any time of the day, use dictophone and video cameras, as well as other means of modern technology. The material observers obtain during observaton via those technical means should be considered as evidence obtained via legal way, relevant changes should be made to Civic Procedural Code and Criminal Procedural Code. Records of observation cameras should also be unconditionally considered legally obtained evidence for courts, these records should be critical at any dispute. Legal force of the act compiled by observer should not be linked to other persons' will and should be evaluated as one of direct evidences.
All norms on conduct of exit poll should be excluded from the Code, any public body should freely conduct exit poll in any polling station and constituency. As it carries public control character over election process, getting CEC consent is of absurd nature.