Azerbaijan - Elections 2024 - President

On 7 December 2023, President Ilham Aliyev declared an early presidential election to be held on 7 February 2024, 14 months before the due expiration of his seven-year term of office. The declaration was made on the same day that Azerbaijan and Armenia publicly reaffirmed their intention to normalize relations and negotiate a peace treaty. This follows Azerbaijan’s military action on 19 and 20 September and the displacement of more than 100,000 Karabakh Armenians. This election was the first to be held across the entire territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan. While no official reason was given when the early election was called, on 10 January, the President argued in a televised interview that the election was required as the restoration of territorial sovereignty marked the end of an era. Echoing these sentiments, each of the candidates endorsed the necessity of holding an election early.

The 7 February early presidential election took place in a restrictive environment, and while preparations were efficiently managed, it was marked by the stifling of critical voices and the absence of political alternatives. This was the first election to be held throughout the internationally recognized territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan. This topic dominated the low-key campaign and echoed the public sentiment. The incumbent was not meaningfully challenged, and this combined with the shrinking space for independent media, civil society, and political parties, and strengthened powers of incumbency resulted in a contest devoid of genuine pluralism. Longstanding severe limitations on fundamental freedoms of association, expression and peaceful assembly both in law and in practice run contrary to standards for genuine democratic elections.

The 23-day election campaign period started on 15 January and ended on 6 February. All registered candidates were able to campaign freely within the confines of the Election Code, which requires advance notification to organize any outdoor campaign events, and in practice approval from the authorities to hold meetings outside of the 139 specified campaign locations throughout the country. In addition, the display of posters is limited to the 10,000 CEC-designated official poster-boards outside polling stations and in some other public spaces. The candidates mostly campaigned through the 10 television presentations provided free of charge, and held small-scale indoor meetings with voters. Whilst there was limited visibility of candidates’ campaigns, there was an extensive get-out-the-vote campaign by the CEC which resulted in far larger numbers of posters placed on official buildings and private businesses throughout the country.

The election administration conducted an extensive get-out-the-vote campaign, but the nominal campaign coverage by the media and near absence of analytical reporting limited voters’ opportunity to make an informed choice. While election commissions were well-resourced, important safeguards were often disregarded and substantial procedural errors and omissions were observed during the opening, voting, counting and tabulation. The Constitution provides for fundamental freedoms, but numerous undue restrictions in law and practice continue to exist including with the recently adopted laws on Political Parties and on Media, and result in a legal framework further departing from international standards and OSCE commitments. The Election Code is detailed and regulates all aspects of the electoral process.

All levels of the election administration managed the electoral preparations efficiently in line with the established deadlines and were professional. The Central Election Commission (CEC) held regular sessions open to observers and the media and published decisions promptly, contributing to transparency. While the election administration enjoyed some stakeholders’ confidence it did not have a politically balanced composition in practice at all levels and some other stakeholders questioned its ability to act impartially and independently. The nationwide training program was positively assessed as interactive and comprehensive. The CEC undertook an extensive get-out-the-vote campaign throughout the country. The election administration has made significant efforts to secure the right to vote of internally displaced persons.

Some 6.5 million voters were registered. This is an increase of some 1.1 million since the 2020 parliamentary elections, which partially addresses the persisting significant difference between data from the CEC on the number of registered voters and data from the State Statistical Committee on the number of citizens of voting age. The lack of publicly available information to comprehensively explain the difference and the increase in the number of registered voters creates mistrust in the accuracy and inclusiveness of the voter register even though voter lists were available for public scrutiny. Restrictions on the right to vote for those with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities remain, contrary to international standards. Voters could be added to the voter lists on election day at polling stations without prior judicial oversight, not in line with international good practice; this was observed in practice.

The low-key campaign generated limited public engagement and lacked a genuine competitive nature, including on social networks. It was conducted primarily through TV presentations by the candidates or their proxies, and the use of the 10,000 CEC-designated poster boards which systematically featured one poster per contender. The incumbent did not use official social media accounts for campaigning, however, the promotion of the President’s activities on the government’s websites persisted. None of the contestants convincingly challenged the incumbent’s policies in their campaign messages, therefore not providing alternatives for voters. Messages related to the restoration of Azerbaijan’s sovereignty and support for the President’s foreign policy dominated the campaign discourse.

No registered candidate raised concerns with respect to their ability to campaign freely although campaign regulations are overly restrictive. Some civil society and opposition representatives noted that the current legal framework and its implementation, overall, significantly impedes their ability to exercise their right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to hold public gatherings, including outside the campaign period.

The legislation sets limits on the sources and amounts of campaign donations and expenditures. The CEC, as campaign finance oversight body, published aggregated information on candidates’ reported campaign incomes and expenditures prior to election day. All candidates, including the incumbent, spent a nominal amount on their campaigns relative to the expenditure limits according to published reports. The reported combined campaign expenditure of the six contestants was about three times lower than the amount spent by the incumbent. The CEC conducts audits only of candidates’ financial activities which are considered suspicious and there is no legal requirement for the CEC to publish the findings of its audits of campaign finance reports, thus limiting transparency and the effectiveness of campaign finance oversight. An overly-restrictive legal framework related to the media, combined with a recent round of arrests of critical journalists, has fostered a significantly constrained environment for the media and resulted in widespread self-censorship, limiting the scope for independent journalism and critical discourse.

Media provided nominal coverage of the contestants throughout the campaign period, aside from free presentations on the public broadcaster, joint round tables in prime time and a few paid political advertisements. This significantly limited voters’ opportunity to learn about the contestants and their programs, and to make an informed choice, and along with the almost complete absence of critical coverage of the President contributed to the lack of competitiveness in the campaign.

Observers reported a number of indications of serious violations, including of ballot box stuffing (29 polling stations), seemingly identical signatures on the voter lists in 5 per cent of observations as well as group voting in 4 per cent of observations. Ballot boxes were not sealed properly in almost 4 per cent of observed polling stations. Complaints were submitted in only 56 polling stations observed. The OSCE International Election Observation Mission [IEOM] assessed counting negatively in more than half (61) of the 113 counts observed due to substantial procedural errors and omissions both before and after the opening of the ballot boxes, raising serious questions about whether ballots were counted and reported honestly. Following the opening of the ballot boxes, IEOM observers noted indications of ballot box stuffing, including clumps or stacks of ballots in 13 cases and in 12 instances the number of ballots in the ballot box was higher than the number of voters who had voted.