"Securitization/De-Securitization" and Attitudes in Azerbaijan in Reaction to the Karabagh Conflict

Abstract

The article explores the securitization/de-securitization processes and attitudes towards the conflict in Azerbaijan in the periods before, during, and after the 2020 conflict in Karabagh. An earlier study (Alieva and Aslanov, 2018) revealed that even under conditions of strict autocratic rule, there has been a diversification of societal attitudes depending on sets of views and ideologies - from conservative and (pre)modern to liberal and post-modern - during the "status quo" period, demonstrating de-securitization potential from civil society actors (NGOs, political opposition, independent intellectuals). The recent flare-up in Karabagh shows, however, that neither favorable attitudes towards peace among the Azerbaijani elite, nor democratic changes in Armenia automatically immunize society against military/political mobilization and securitization if they are not indicators of deeper human and political emancipation and if the grievances, such as human rights violations, ethnic cleansing, violation of international borders, and/or war crimes, are not legally redressed internationally and/or domestically. In turn, the unsustainable nature of the attempts at "top-down" de-securitization, or that from formal authority, is affected by the fact that it does not "unmake securitization's nondemocratic, exceptional and exclusionary logic" (Aradau, 2004), but rather replicates it. The official "speech acts" reflect the utilization of the external threat against domestic opponents for purposes of blame avoidance and, while calling for peaceful reconstruction, hint at the possibility of future war. Yet, even under conditions of strict autocracy, the internet and social networks provide for the silenced voices and for the multiplicity of agents challenging the monopoly on (de-)securitization of the formal authority, reinforced by the infelicities (amounting to flaws) of the post-war governance.