By the Vesti Baku Editorial Board
In Azerbaijan’s relations with Turkey, disagreements have traditionally been softened, rounded off or moved out of public view. For years, that restraint seemed natural: relations were special, the strategic partnership was strong, and political disputes appeared secondary to the broader alliance.
Over the past decade, however, the rules of political conversation in Turkey have changed. Slogans about brotherhood can no longer conceal a growing problem: the political language associated with the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, is increasingly at odds with the secular, sovereign and pluralistic principles on which Azerbaijan must conduct its own affairs.
A Political Culture Moving Backward
Under the AKP, state power is too often presented not merely as an elected mandate but as a form of moral superiority. Religious rhetoric replaces argument, criticism is treated as disloyalty, and disagreement prompts questions about a person’s patriotism or faith.
This does not describe Turkish society as a whole. Turkey remains far more diverse, educated and politically complex than any governing party’s preferred image of it. But the political system has become less tolerant of independent voices and less willing to hear uncomfortable questions.
The European Commission’s 2025 report on Turkey documented continued backsliding in the rule of law, concerns about judicial independence, pressure on freedom of expression and constrained media pluralism. It also described arbitrary prosecutions and other pressure directed at journalists, opposition figures, civil society representatives and critical voices.
These are not abstract concerns for European institutions alone. They affect the quality of Turkey’s political decision-making and the language it uses with its partners.
More Authority Does Not Mean a Stronger Country
A system in which the authorities face fewer constraints may look decisive, but greater concentration of power does not automatically produce a stronger state. When criticism is suppressed, mistakes become harder to correct. When loyalty matters more than professional judgment, institutions lose competence. When courts are seen as politically dependent, public confidence erodes.
The constitutional changes approved in Turkey in 2017 deepened these concerns. In its opinion on the amendments, the Venice Commission warned about the independence of the judiciary and the structure of the bodies responsible for appointing, promoting and disciplining judges and prosecutors.
The deeper issue is not one party, one election or one political slogan. It is a model in which institutions increasingly serve the executive and political legitimacy is framed in ideological or religious terms. Such a model narrows public life and turns disagreement into a test of allegiance.
Why This Matters to Azerbaijan
An ally’s domestic political culture inevitably shapes the way it speaks to other countries. When that culture becomes paternalistic, Azerbaijan begins to hear not the language of equal partnership but the language of instruction: how society should think, how religion should function and which political choices are considered acceptable.
Baku should not accept that tone from any capital, including Ankara.
Azerbaijan alone must decide the principles of its secular state, the relationship between religion and public education, the conduct of its diplomacy and the definition of its national interests. Close relations with Turkey do not reduce Azerbaijan’s sovereignty or create an obligation to follow the AKP’s ideological preferences.
Brotherhood Is Not a License for Guardianship
Appeals to common history, language and culture are powerful and sincere. But brotherhood cannot become a license for political guardianship. A government cannot use religious rhetoric to judge another society, and the AKP cannot claim to speak for every believer, every conservative or every Turkish citizen.
Azerbaijan must draw its boundaries clearly. Respect for Turkey does not mean accepting interference. Strategic cooperation does not mean ideological submission. Silence may be interpreted not as courtesy but as consent - and each unchallenged intrusion can create an expectation of the next concession.
The Azerbaijani public sphere has also developed an unhealthy taboo. Criticism of Turkey’s ruling party is often portrayed as hostility toward Turkey itself, while questioning an official message from Ankara is treated as disloyalty to the alliance. That reflex grants political immunity where none should exist.
It also harms the relationship it is meant to protect. When legitimate disagreements cannot be discussed openly, irritation does not disappear; it accumulates. A durable alliance needs honesty, not ritual agreement.
Gratitude Is Not a Blank Check
Turkey’s support for Azerbaijan has been important, particularly at decisive moments in the country’s modern history. That support deserves recognition. But gratitude is not a requirement to endorse every message, policy or ideological initiative coming from Ankara.
Partnership between sovereign states must rest on mutual benefit and mutual respect. Azerbaijan can value Turkey’s security and diplomatic support while rejecting political paternalism. It can defend the alliance while also defending its own secular institutions and freedom of judgment.
The AKP Is Not Turkey
The ruling party must not be allowed to appropriate the entire Turkish state or nation. Turkey is larger than the AKP. It includes a republican tradition, a broad secular public, multiple conservative currents, opposition parties, independent thinkers and citizens with sharply different visions of their country’s future.
Criticism of the AKP is therefore not hostility toward the Turkish people. It can coexist with deep respect for Turkey’s history, culture and society. In fact, refusing to distinguish between a country and its current government is itself a disservice to the diversity of Turkish public life.
A Relationship Between Equals
Azerbaijan needs a strong Turkey - one that is institutionally resilient, economically successful and confident enough to respect the independence of its allies. But strength should not be confused with ideological control, and solidarity should not require silence.
The language of alliance is the language of equal states. The language of ideological mentoring belongs to a different relationship altogether.
Baku should say so openly. Closeness should make an honest conversation possible, not make disagreement forbidden. If the Azerbaijani-Turkish partnership is as durable as both sides say, it can withstand direct criticism. More importantly, it needs that criticism to remain healthy.
Originally published in Russian by Vesti Baku.