Ivan Popesku: "The OSCE opinion prevails in the final report of the united missions of observers of presidential elections from OSCE and Council of Europe"

- There is an opinion that the critical assessment of the results of elections in the post-Soviet countries by such European institutions as PACE and OSCE is caused by a biased approach to these countries, which have features, different from the Western European countries. What do you think about it?

- You are a way right. I will explain why. The Council Europe sometimes applies a policy of double standards. If, for example, we speak about events in Kosovo and recent events in the Caucasus, in the first case the CE recognized it and in case of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, we have observed the obvious nonacceptance of referendums held there. Different approaches towards similar cases have been displayed there.

Now about mentality. The thing is that our mentality was formed by a socialistic system, while the CE countries base of the capitalistic system, which has a definite role.

I consider that OSCE while assessing the results of elections have a previously modeled plan or project of this assessment. Therefore, they spare no efforts in finding out the shortcomings in the electoral process. But impression is different here. I had an opportunity of comparing elections in Kosovo, Croatia, Ukraine and now in Azerbaijan. When a political power, a candidate, who is more profitable for those people, who assess the elections, it means that there is no problem, even if there were really some violations.

For example, elections in Georgia. They were not held completely, as they should be. But both presidential and parliamentary elections were recognized as almost democratic.  Or a case of Ukraine, where Yanukovich, representative of the regions party won elections of 2004. He was not accepted by the West. Therefore, the West called the elections as unfair and demanded to hold the third round of voting. But the third round of voting is not held anywhere in Europe. They hold elections anew if there are significant violations in the second round. These examples prove that if a candidate is not profitable for them, the assessment will be negative.

- But, according to the recent experience of Azerbaijan, there are serious clashes about the overall assessment of the results of elections within the mission of European observers. What is the reason?

- Our CE mission observing elections in Azerbaijan involves deputies, representatives of different political groups from other countries, each of whom, has right to vote. As for the OSCE, there are many volunteers, along with deputies, who do not have a right to make a conclusion. They gather information, submit it to those who generalize it and someone makes a final decision at last. Considering it, the opinion is different. But when OSCE and CE are brought together, naturally, there are more OSCE observers than their CE counterparts. In the result, their opinion prevails.

- What do you think about what you have seen in Azerbaijan?

- On the whole, the presidential elections in Azerbaijan have met the European standards. I saw the organization of the voting stations. Azerbaijani powers have done much to ensure everything for holding the elections.

- What do you think about boycott of elections by the Azerbaijani opposition?

- We were told that several political parties have rejected participation in the elections, which they think have made the competition impossible. I would say as follows: an unused right is not considered a violated right. If these parties had submitted appeals of their candidates and they had not been registered, then they could have spoken about violations.

But if these parties decided not to take part in the elections, it is also not democratic to criticize someone on this basis, for it is their problem. If these parties did not feel that they could win, they could have united, but they did not do it. It is easier for those, who does not take part, to criticize than to work.

/Day.Az/