The Presidential elections in Armenia and the subsequent violence in that country have raised eyebrows in Azerbaijan. Little did anyone expect that the weak and divided opposition, headed by former President Levon Ter-Petrossian would put up such a resistance to the Serzh Sarkissian, the former Prime Minister and groomed successor to President Robert Kocharyan. Regional heavyweights such as Iran, Russia and the U.S. seemed all to have accepted the idea of Sarkissian becoming Armenia’s next President, and did not support any of the opposition candidates.

Yet the massive political chaos that erupted in Yerevan, and the follow-up steps including arrests of opposition leaders, closure of internet sites, and firing of government employees that defected to the opposition, caught Azerbaijan off guard. Officially, 8 persons were killed and more than 150 wounded in the post-election protests in Yerevan. Unofficially, however, it is estimated that more than 50 persons were killed. The government of Azerbaijan, which has chosen to stay out of Armenian domestic affairs since the beginning of the election season, hesitated on whether and if so, how, it should react to developments in Armenia.

Khazar Ibrahim, spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, informed journalists on his usual weekly briefing on March 3 that the events in Armenia “are internal matters of that country. Nevertheless, we do not want to see any excuses from the side of Armenia which could derail the peace process.”

Meanwhile, Azerbaijani media outlets actively reacted to the violence in Yerevan, drawing attention to the massive human rights violations in that country and the lack of democracy. The Day.az News site, the most popular internet portal in Azerbaijan, blamed the international community for not reacting as harshly at the Armenian elections as it often does to elections in other countries. A Day.az editorial called it “double standards.”

Other journalists and analysts urged the Azerbaijani government to react to the events in Yerevan and to caution residents of Nagorno-Karabakh (whom official Baku considers its citizens) against engaging in this violence. Others have urged the Azerbaijani Diaspora to discuss the issue in their host countries. In the case of the U.S., this would be the timeliest action, as pro-Armenian members of the U.S. Congress have always used the “democracy” factor as an excuse to justify the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenian forces. Now, the Azerbaijani intelligentsia insists, the events in Armenia could be the best way to prove that Armenia is not a free and democratic country as it claims.

Levon Ter-Petrossian himself was quoted saying that even if he does not succeed in changing the election results, he is happy that at least he succeeded in mobilizing society and activating it. Indeed, Armenian society has been so dominated by pro-Russian and nationalist politicians that it seemed unlikely that some other political force could influence the political spectrum to this extent. Now, people wonder whether the monopoly of the Kocharyan regime and its grip on power are slowly fading away. Azerbaijanis generally accept opposition leader Ter-Petrossian as a wise and pragmatic man, who understands that Armenia can only prosper and develop in partnership with Turkey and Azerbaijan and not in hostile relations with them.

On March 4, heavy fighting erupted in the frontline zone along the line of contact near Nagorno-Karabakh between Armenian and Azerbaijani soldiers. Cease-fire violations are rather common, but this incident did not seem like one of the usual violations of the cease-fire. The Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan reported that four Azerbaijani and 12 Armenian soldiers had been killed as a result of intensive shoot-outs.

The coincidence of military activities in the front line with the developments in the Armenian capital are puzzling. On the one hand, this could be perceived as an attempt by Azerbaijani politicians to capitalize on the instability in Armenia and take back some of the occupied territories. This seems unlikely, as the Azerbaijan political leadership has showed little inclination to start a war in the middle of its economic boom. Another more logical conclusion could be that Armenian political and military leaders may want to distract attention from domestic affairs by highlighting an external threat to the country. This, in turn, could become a very dangerous precedent in the future, increasing the use of the conflict for domestic reasons, which could easily get out of hand an rekindle a return to war.