Azerbaijan – Repressed Authoritarianism or Benign Dictatorship - closer to Putin’s Russia or Zelensky’s Ukraine?

I recently visited Azerbaijan and I wrote a very complimentary travel blog recommending it as a tourist destination. I didn’t mention the political situation there at all as I didn’t feel it was relevant to tourism. However, I feel it does merit a separate article as the issues of history, geography and politics interest me greatly.

President Ilham Aliyev, ruler of Azerbaijan.

On my first night in Baku, I got chatting with a local man – we weren’t talking about politics or any related subject. He just suddenly remarked: ‘My country is safer than yours.’ I asked him what he meant and he told me I could walk down any street in the country and never be attacked or mugged or have any of my property stolen.

He had a point. Azerbaijan has relatively low levels of serious street crime and violent crime. You can walk around Baku and many other parts of the country without the feeling of personal danger that you might get in some larger European cities. There is also a very visible police presence and a fairly controlled society.

Ireland, to be fair, is also an extremely safe country by international standards. So I said to him that I wouldn't describe Azerbaijan as dramatically safer than Ireland. He acknowledged this and then smiled and said that there is another important distinction: Azerbaijan is safer in some everyday-crime respects, but it isn't necessarily ‘safer’ in the broader sense of living in a free society. I knew what he meant but I asked anyway and he told me:

“Azerbaijanis can be completely safe as long as they stay out of the political arena. We have a very poor record on political freedom, independent journalism and treatment of political opponents.” I checked this out and I found Reuters has documented arrests of journalists and activists and described the 2024 presidential election, in which Ilham Aliyev received more than 92% of the vote, as having been neither free nor fair.

My friend would not wish to be quoted so he will remain anonymous. It got me thinking though about Azerbaijan and, particularly, the way the political system operates there. Having travelled extensively, I’m obviously familiar with the fact that countries have very different systems of government, so I’m not approaching this from the perspective of someone who expects Azerbaijan to operate like Ireland or another Western European democracy.

What strikes me about Azerbaijan is the extent to which political power is concentrated around President Ilham Aliyev and his family. Azerbaijan formally has the institutions of a republic – a president, parliament, courts and elections – but in practice the presidency dominates the political system.

The Aliyev family has been at the centre of political power for decades. Heydar Aliyev, the former head of the KGB in Azerbaijan, ruled the country first as a Soviet leader and later as president of independent Azerbaijan. His son, Ilham Aliyev, succeeded him in 2003 and has remained president ever since.

Elections take place, but Azerbaijan is not generally regarded as a genuinely competitive political democracy. Opposition parties have limited room to operate, independent media face considerable restrictions, and critics of the government can encounter serious political and legal pressure.

There is also a strong connection between political power and economic power. The state has enormous influence over important parts of the economy, and networks connected to the political establishment have traditionally benefited from that system. This makes it difficult to separate political influence from economic influence.

At the same time, I think it would be too simplistic to describe Azerbaijan merely as a dictatorship and leave it at that. The government has delivered considerable infrastructure development, particularly in Baku, and oil and gas revenues have enabled the state to invest heavily in roads, public buildings and other infrastructure. The road infrastructure is as good as you will find anywhere with the exception of very remote areas. Their traffic management and control systems are as sophisticated as I have ever encountered. So the money isn’t wasted on pointless wars – it is ploughed back into the economy.

There is also an important historical factor. Azerbaijan emerged from the Soviet Union in a difficult position, surrounded by major geopolitical pressures and involved in the conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. The country borders Russia to the north and Iran to the south, two empires that have kicked Azerbaijan around between them for a thousand years, In fact there are more Azerbaijanis in Iran than in Azerbaijan. Hence, the government has used the idea of national security, territorial integrity and the recovery of Azerbaijani territory as powerful sources of legitimacy.

That helps explain why the political system has been able to maintain relatively strong public support in some sections of society despite its lack of political competition. The full recovery of all of Nakorno-Karabakh by President Aliyev’s forces in 2023 added greatly to this public support and it is likely he will draw from it indefinitely.

Another interesting feature is the contrast between what you see on the surface and what lies underneath. Baku is a modern, wealthy-looking capital with impressive architecture, excellent roads and considerable investment. Yet the political system behind that modern façade remains highly centralised – you could argue of course that it’s the same in China – perhaps even more so.

So, in simple terms, I would describe Azerbaijan as an authoritarian presidential system with elections and formal democratic institutions, but with very limited genuine political competition.

The important point, however, is that this is not simply about whether Azerbaijan is "democratic" or "undemocratic". The more interesting question is how power actually works.

And in Azerbaijan, power is concentrated very heavily at the top, with the presidency, the political establishment and influential economic networks closely interconnected.

I think the more interesting comparison of Azerbaijan is not with Ireland or Western European democracies - it is with Putin's Russia.

Having travelled extensively in Russia, I don't think it is unreasonable to see considerable similarities between the two systems. But I would also make an important distinction: Azerbaijan is authoritarian and presumably corrupt, but present-day Russia is considerably more repressive and has developed into a much more comprehensive security state.

Both systems are built around one dominant political family or individual, rather than around genuinely competitive political institutions. In Azerbaijan, power has been concentrated around the Aliyev family. Heydar Aliyev took power in 1993 and was succeeded by his son Ilham Aliyev in 2003. But it wasn’t seamless as my research showed:

In 1991, when the Soviet Union broke up, all fifteen member states immediately declared independence. Heydar Aliyev was at that time based in Moscow and was a very senior Soviet official. He had been head of the KGB in Azerbaijan previously. He returned immediately when Azerbaijan became independent.

So when the Soviet Union collapsed, Aliyev wasn't some obscure former KGB officer suddenly appearing on the scene. He was an extremely experienced and powerful Soviet political operator. And here's the extraordinary part - Azerbaijan actually did have a democratic revolution after independence. In 1992, Abulfaz Elchibey, an anti-communist opposition leader, won the country's first genuinely competitive post-Soviet presidential election. It was a very different Azerbaijan.

Unfortunately everything then fell apart. There was war with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, military defeats, political chaos, economic problems and an armed uprising. In 1993, Elchibey was driven from power and Heydar Aliyev returned to the centre of politics. This was the crucial moment. Aliyev presented himself as the man who could restore order. And he did, at least to a considerable extent. So we are back to the old Soviet (Russian?) tradition of the people liking a strong man who can restore order. Aliyev consolidated power, stabilised the state and, crucially, gained control over the political machinery. Once he controlled the state, opposition became increasingly difficult. He was elected president in October 1993 and re-elected in 1998 although the latter election was marred by serious irregularities.

Heydar Aliyev died in 2003 and his son, Ilham Aliyev, seamlessly succeeded him as president. Ilham has now been president for 23 years. Every main street in every city and town in Azerbaijan is named Heydar Aliyev. The airport in Baku bears his name. Practically anything or any building of note is also named after him. Is there a word called ubiquity? Apparently there is – well the Aliyev family has perfected it.

Freedom House's 2026 assessment describes Azerbaijan explicitly as an authoritarian regime in which power remains heavily concentrated in Ilham Aliyev and his extended family. It also describes corruption as rampant and says the formal political opposition has been weakened by years of persecution.

Russia under Putin has followed a somewhat different route. Putin did not inherit the presidency from his father, of course, and there is no equivalent Putin family dynasty. Instead, he gradually built a highly centralised system around himself, the security services, loyal oligarchs, the ruling United Russia establishment and the presidential administration.

Freedom House describes Russia in very similar terms: power is concentrated in Putin's hands, with loyal security forces, subservient courts, controlled media and a legislature dominated by the ruling establishment.

So the underlying political model is similar: One powerful leader - weak institutions - controlled elections - weakened or banned opposition - controlled and subservient media – hence political and economic power concentrated around the ruling establishment.

But there is an important difference. I would say that Azerbaijan is less oppressive than Russia today. That may sound surprising when you look at the political system, but the difference becomes obvious when you look at what happens to people who challenge the state.

In Azerbaijan, opposition politicians, journalists and activists can certainly be arrested and prosecuted. There has been a significant recent crackdown. Only last month, for example, nine journalists and activists associated with an independent TV channel received lengthy prison sentences in a case widely condemned by international media organisations as politically motivated.

But Russia has gone much further. Since the invasion of Ukraine, criticism of the government and especially criticism of the war can lead to extremely serious criminal charges. Independent media have been virtually eliminated or forced abroad, opposition organisations have been banned, and the security apparatus has become much more intrusive.

The Russian parliamentary election taking place at the moment illustrates the difference. Reuters reports that genuine political competition is extremely limited and that United Russia is expected to retain its dominance.

In other words, Azerbaijan's authoritarianism is severe, but Putin's Russia has become a far more comprehensive system of repression.

The corruption question is interesting. Both countries have serious corruption problems, but I wouldn't simply say that Azerbaijan is "as corrupt as Russia."

Transparency International's 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index gives Azerbaijan a score of 30/100 and ranks it 130th out of 182 countries.

Russia's score remains extremely poor and has returned to its worst-ever level according to Transparency International's Russian organisation.

But let’s leave the political analysis for now and concentrate on a practice that is alive and well in both countries - it is something that has always fascinated me because it seems to me so obvious as to what is going on – the cult of the great leader being pushed to an absurd extent. Let me explain: I had an interesting experience driving from Ismayilli towards Baku. I had planned to visit Pirqulu, but the whole area was closed because President Aliyev was travelling somewhere in the region. Now, nobody knew precisely where in the region he was but the entire area was on high alert.

What amazed me was the scale of the security operation. I must have seen at least 100 police cars, and there were policemen at every junction and crossroads, just standing on the side of the road or on a bank overlooking it. Armed military personnel were everywhere. This continued for perhaps 30 kilometres into the countryside, in every direction, even on roads that the President would not be using.

Apparently the roads could be closed for two or three hours before the president actually arrived. The local policemen I asked didn't even know exactly when they would reopen.

Azerbaijan has a substantial police and internal-security apparatus, although there doesn't appear to be a reliable current public figure for the total number of police officers. For a presidential journey, personnel can be drawn from local police, traffic police, specialist units and the Interior Ministry's Internal Troops.

The reason for the extraordinary operation is essentially that the authorities want to secure the entire route well before the presidential convoy reaches it. Every side road, junction and possible access point is controlled, which explains the policemen standing apparently in the middle of nowhere.

It reminded me strongly of what I saw in Ukraine in the 1990s and, particularly, in Russia during the Putin era. It isn't necessarily evidence by itself of a personality cult, but it does reflect Azerbaijan's highly centralised presidential system.

In a normal democratic system, protecting a president is primarily a security and traffic-management exercise. Here, the approach seems to be much more absolute: Nothing whatsoever must be allowed to interfere with the president's movement. The result is that an enormous amount of police and security manpower can be deployed simply to make sure the route is completely controlled.

And because Azerbaijan is relatively small, the effect is extraordinary. For a few hours, it really can feel as though an entire part of the country has been closed down for one man. To my mind, the entire exercise is for effect – to show the ordinary population how important and how great this individual is.

Needless to say, Azerbaijan also follows the Russian practice of every business displaying a photograph of the President in every office. (Actually, I noticed in the US last time I visited that all the Government offices are now displaying photos of Trump but more of that in another article). In Azerbaijan, they go further – there are huge billboards displaying photos of a smiling President Aliyev in every town and village. The only other place I have seen this practice was in the Middle East.

It reminds me of what the former Irish Prime Minister (Taoiseach), Bertie Ahern, said to me when he discovered this practice in Russia during a visit in 2003. He was amazed that everywhere he went; there was a photo of Putin. He shrugged, in typical Irish fashion, and remarked: “Jaysus lads, if a fella in Ireland put a photo of me on his desk or his mantelpiece, people would think there was something wrong with him. It sums up my own view perfectly.

So to conclude, what type of system of Government does Azerbaijan have? I will let you judge for yourselves but some of the people told me, quietly, after a glass or two – it’s a dictatorship – pure and simple. To me it’s a shame. You can say, what do I know and you’d be correct. China is not a democracy and it’s doing fine, apparently.

With the limited knowledge I gained from my visit and my subsequent research, I will concede that Azerbaijan, while not free and fair, is still a lot closer to Zelensky’s Ukraine than to Putin’s Russia. Let’s hope both survive and progress.

I don’t like to end on a negative note but as a long-time advocate of democratic systems, I find it sad that thirty five years after the break-up of the Soviet Union, only the three Baltic States and Ukraine are democracies. The other eleven countries are all dictatorships – not all with the same level of repression but nonetheless they are countries where the people have no real say in who leads or rules them.