What were the attitudes of the governments and the voters toward the 2003 elections in the three South Caucasian states? To what degree were the governments in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia prepared to hold fair and democratic elections? Did people vote because they realized that the best way to bring about democracy is through forming governments by means of elections? Which of the South Caucasian countries has drawn nearer to European standards since the elections? These are the questions that were discussed by political scientists from the three South Caucasian states during an online conference organized by the Region Center of the Association of Investigative Journalists on November 11-14, 2003. The following are excerpts from the online conference. Conference materials in full can be found at www.caucasianjournalists.net.

Mubariz Ahmedoghlu (Azerbaijan) - The opposition in Georgia, which originated from within the government, substantially curtails the government’s potential to maneuver. The ministry of defense is unable to interfere in the situation since formal approval by the parliament is required. Because of the events that are presently taking place in Georgia, the parliament may not give this approval, and this is essential. The elections in Georgia were organized very poorly. Delays in supplying the polling stations with ballots, and alterations in the voting timeframe on Election Day did not occur in any other country. The Georgian Central Election Commission is to blame. It took part in the political dispute.

Shahin Rzayev (Azerbaijan) - Mubadiz, it is great that such fora are being organized - we haven’t been in touch for a hundred years. Interesting things have been said here: “I have information that people who never voted since czarist times took part in the elections [the presidential election in Azerbaijan].” A question then arises - how old are these voters? By my modest calculations they should be no less than 103 years old, since they had to be of full legal age during czarist times. Another quote: “Each activist from the party in power was responsible for 5-10, sometimes even 20 voters.” Let’s divide the general number of voters by ten or even by twenty; it doesn’t work out, anyway. But I agree with you on one thing - that a record number of voters were registered during the elections. I personally explain that by the absence of Heydar Aliyev. Government supporters realized that they had something to lose, and opposition supporters thought that their time had finally come. But Heydar Aliyev has set the power machine going so well that it will run on autopilot for a long time.

Marina Muskhelishvili (Georgia) - The election returns in Georgia were predetermined by the campaign, not by the violations committed on Election Day. The election campaign, as well as the money received for it from international organizations, was a consequence of the fact that the Shevardnadze regime had been likened to that of Milosevic. As a result, the opposition found itself in the position of fighting against dictatorship. The Georgian opposition’s potential for manipulation was greater than the government’s. Another issue was the issue of voter lists. The government made a significant mistake - it followed the advice of international organizations and tried to amend them before the elections. Of course, it was impossible to do so in the short period of time left until the elections, and the opposition did everything to worsen the situation with the voter lists. All this has been turned against the government, and people have been led to the streets.

Stepan Grigoryan (Armenia) - In Armenia, the method of forming the election commissions is so bad that the opposition has no possibility of appointing its representatives there. The OSCE observers, among other things, registered a funny incident where a CIS observer was caught stuffing a ballot box. As far as I know, in this respect the situation in Georgia is better, if only owing to the fact that the voters were required to mark their fingers with special ink. That is why I think in Armenia it was hard to discover the scope of violations that had been committed during the voting after the ballot boxes were opened, but in Georgia the opportunity to restore the truth still exists.

Rasim Musabekov (Azerbaijan) - The government of Azerbaijan exhibited particularly uncivilized behavior. But perhaps the task of replacing Aliyev with his son Ilham was impossible to accomplish any other way. After all, the sentiments of protest in Azebaijan were probably deeper than in Armenia and Georgia. The opposition held rallies that were bigger than those in Armenia or in Georgia today. Voter participation in Azerbaijan was quite high, and as a result the disillusionment was similarly deep. On yet another danger - after such elections, mobilizing the voters in the future will be a quite difficult thing to do. But the government doesn’t care about this anymore. In Azerbaijan we don’t have a required quorum. So the fewer people that participate in the elections, the less of a headache it will be, and the easier it will be to falsify the results.

Suren Baghdasaryan (Armenia) - The traditions in the Caucasus are such that politics has always been carried out from above. The public response to elections that manifested itself variously in Yerevan, Baku and Tbilisi has shown that society, or part of it, has taken seriously the notion that democracy is managed by the people. The South Caucasian states still have a long while before they are “liberated” from the Asian aspects of their political life. As long as such notions as “father”, “son”, “hero”, “warrior” and so on are widespread here, we will have what we have.