Ali Huseynov: "Any serious expert should not have claims about the decrease in the election campaign term, provided that it does not hinder conduction of normal elections"

- How can you respond to reproaches of CE representatives on the reduction of election campaign terms by Azerbaijani law-makers?

- For me, it was a great surprise. If other innovations to the Electoral Code were spoken of, it could have been debated, while the issue of the reduction in the election campaign term is what must not raise issue.

The point is that the issue of terms was being settled in 2003. At that time Azerbaijani experts and law-markers were aware that a four months term is too long, but they did it on purpose, as in conditions of the absence of a sufficient experience, we faced the task of creating commissions for holding all the elections. At the same time, some deputies considered that such a long term does not comply with due standards, adopted in most other countries.

Now, I think it is time when the material and technical basis of the election commissions of all levels has finally been ensured and the commissions are able to hold elections in the shorter times. This implies not simply a figure, which we have reduced. The point is the capacities of the election commissions and they are ready.

- Do you think that the first time we will not fail and the election commissions will be ready to make it in the new reduced terms?

- Undoubtedly, yes. I said while speaking in Milli Medjlis regarding the due experience of other countries, that Hungary allots 45 days for the same purposes, neighbor Georgia-60 days, Russia 90 days (though by their legislation it is possible to hold both parliamentary and presidential elections at the same time). I proposed various of 60 days, but in the result the term of 75 days was adopted.

I consider that any serious expert should not have claims regarding the decrease in the election campaign term, if it does not hinder the conduction of normal elections. The election process may last for 50 days, provided that the commissions are able to cope with their tasks and elections are held in line with the law.

Anyway, we reduced terms now in early June. Which problems can it cause to candidates to president, when they have several months for preparations? The answer is no problems. Therefore, I think there are no technical problems with the aforementioned innovations.

- How about innovations regarding the transfer of TV debates from the state TV to the public one?

- This issue can be debated, though I am sure that if we had had a public television before 2003, the Code will fix the moment of holding debates there as well.

- So, it should not be a great difference for the candidates which TV channel can be used for their pre-election campaign...

- Of course, not. Though for us it is of great importance. I remember the remark of expert, including PACE rapporteur A.Herkel that the state television should not create best conditions for the candidate of a ruling party. I think the state TV should be bound to observe the legislative frames.

- Everything is clear in this field. And what about the traditional stumbling block in the relations between Azerbaijan and CE and OSCE regarding the activity of the election commissions, including persistent recommendation to change the principle of their formation to balance political forces within the commissions? I remember that chairman of the Central Election Commission Mazahir Panakhov once said that the practice recommended to us is not applied anywhere in the world and moreover, the current principle of formation of Azerbaijani election commissions is more democratic than in the neighbor countries.

- It is true, the practice recommended to us is not applied anywhere and this is a well known fact.

- Then, why do they insist on changing the composition of Azerbaijani election commissions? Notorious double standards again?

- I would not say that double standards are applied here. European organizations explain their recommendations with the need to form election commissions for them to meet interests of all parties. It is too difficult to implement this recommendation. I think the working principle of the formation of election commissions is optimal, if not ideal. Though for me, it has no difference. The most important is that commissions should become professional. The election commission is a state body, which is responsible for elections and holds them and members of the commissions are a sort of arbiters, these are officials for elections. Their professionalism is what should be achieved.

I would not say that we have chosen an ideal variant but at least this is a way leading to it. I think we should continue strengthening the material and technical supply of commissions of all levels. All members of all these commissions should be ensured with state salary in the future. It is important for them to be electoral officials, earn wages and engage in election activity professionally not from elections to elections.

The election commissions face an important task-to hold elections professionally. This is their task but not of the political parties,whose representative constitute the election commissions. It should be noted that some steps have already been taken in this directions. A secretariat has already been created in some commissions, but sooner or later all members of the election commissions will have to transfer to a professional basis. I assure you that the sooner this occurs the earlier the talks about balanced formation of commissions are stopped. Believe me that it would be like that. After it, both international organizations and our experts will be satisfied.

/Day.Az/