In the country — a crisis of power?
The country’s ruling party Yeni Azerbaijan Party initiated the dissolution of Parliament. Why is it necessary for the party which has the most and completely controlling him? Observers say the crisis in the government, the opposition — about the new features, but the social network joke and sneer, reports the BBC.
On Thursday, local news Agency APA reported that the political Council of new Azerbaijan Party (YAP) recommended that its deputies in Parliament (Milli Mejlis) to initiate its dissolution.
The Executive Secretary of party Ali Ahmadov confirmed that the party appealed to President Aliyev with a request to dissolve Parliament. The purpose of this appeal, he said, was “the expansion of reforms.”
“So we open the new opportunities for the development of our country, and set a new tradition in the history of Parliament,” — said Akhmedov.
His Deputy Siyavush Novruzov said that if the proposal is accepted, the current Parliament will act until, until you start to work new.
According to the law, the next parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan was to fall next year. The majority of the seats in the Azerbaijani Parliament — 70 of the 125 — it takes the same ruling party YAP. It is a member and President Ilham Aliyev.
On Friday, this issue will be discussed in Milli Majlis, but now the Chairman of another parliamentary party “Ana Vatan” (“Motherland”) in conversation with Bi-bi-si endorsed this decision and also tied him with new opportunities for reform and the coming into power of young staff.
Causes of dissolution
The lawyer and the expert on elections , Anar Mammadli, the real reason for the dissolution of the Parliament could be a political crisis within the government itself.
“We live in a country where there is no transparency in politics, and we don’t know what’s happening inside the government,” said Anar Mammadli.
According to him, another supposed cause of the dissolution of Parliament that in Azerbaijan fall on hard times. For example, it is possible a new devaluation of the national currency. According to the politician, there are other reasons that might trigger protests.
Mammadli says, the Parliament was controlled by the government completely, and the government will try to continue to prevent the election of opposition candidates.
However, political analyst Rashad Shirin admits that the dissolution of the Parliament may lead to change.
“It’s hard to say whether you will be in the Parliament by the opposition. We have a majority system, but I admit that these elections may be different because the people are already more motivated to make changes in the country, he says. These early parliamentary elections can mobilize both people and the party. But it will end, it is difficult to judge”.
Are the opposition?
Speaking soon live in Facebook the head of the opposition party “Republican Alternative” Ilgar Mamedov called the dissolution of Parliament and historic opportunity for the opposition and for the people.
“We urge all political parties to participate in elections and will participate in them,” — said the politician.
In his opinion, the upcoming parliamentary elections, depending on the will of the people, or make the country finally dynastic or democratic.
Ali Kerimli, the leader of the opposition popular front Party of Azerbaijan, said that the government is trying to provide the resignation of the Parliament as part of the reforms, but he believes that anti-Western rhetoric of the authorities shows that there are no reforms there.
Kerimli said that his party has not yet made a decision to participate in these elections.
What people are saying?
In social networks the news about the dissolution of the Parliament met with skepticism or with a sense of humor, though not always understandable to those who don’t follow the political situation in Azerbaijan.
“I propose to appoint the Parliament Mikail Jabbarov“, — writes the user Teymur. Jabbarov is known that in recent years has headed one after the other, several important agencies and ministries.
“If there come every election the same people, why spend the extra money? Leave them there for 20 years, and that’s the end,” says Nazim.
“So they should be: did the money spent on the mandates, now re — collect,” says Parvin. “Spending a long time repulsed,” objected her Ilgar.