The party recognized the division of the society into different social classes and groups, but at the same time came out in favor of their partnership and cooperation. This tenet of the party’s philosophy was afterwards reflected in Musavat’s theory of national solidarity. According to this theory, “the harmony of the interests of society and the individual” and “universal welfare” must provide the basis for cooperation. Leaders of the party declared that only “a Government which protects the interests not only of one privileged class but also of the entire population can be regarded as an authentic national Government.” This idea was aimed at achieving the consolidation of diverse social groups in the struggle for national liberation.
The party opposed the nationalization of enterprises and believed that “the full abolition of property in modern society will inevitably lead to the loss of personal initiative among people. With the loss of this factor the world will be deprived of variety and wealth, the development of social life will fall behind, people will again acquire primitive qualities and the world movement will be broken. But at the same time the party leadership stated that property should be protected only to the extent that it benefits the entire society.”
The idea of federalism was one of the basic principles of the party’s political program. The party favored the independent existence of each nation but also demanded close ties between these independent units on the basis of the principle of world federation. The party’s adherence to the idea of federalism is confirmed by the fact that after proclaiming the independence of Azerbaijan, the Musavat leaders forwarded the proposal on the confederation of the Caucasian states. A special resolution of the party’s second congress to this effect pledged: “To recognize the consolidation of the Caucasian republics into a free union of the Caucasian Confederation as desirable and urge the entire Caucasian democracy as well as the Governments of neighboring republics to promote the realization of this idea.”
The ideology of the Musavat party was a synthesis of the ideas of national liberation of the East with the democratic concepts of the West. Reflecting common human values and taking into consideration the historical and cultural traditions of the Azeri nation, Musavat’s leaders worked out their own concept of national development, which in the end, as they planned, would have promoted Azerbaijan’s membership within the family of civilized and developed countries of the world.
The idea of the Turkic community was another basic element of Musavat’s ideology. The idea developed in the nineteenth century when virtually all Turkic nations were in a position of colonial dependence on the European powers. The idea of the Turkic community derived mostly from the commonality of language as well as the shared culture and historical fates of theTurkic nations. The existence of such an idea was a manifestation of the national awakening of the Turkic nations. In its initial formulation, which Rasulzade called a “romantic pan-turanism,” the ideology envisaged the creation of a unified state of Turkic nations. However, events soon showed that this plan was not to be.
Nevertheless “romantic pan-turanism,” challenging colonialism on one side and on the other, the religious-Islamic ideology which at that time dominated the Turkic world, played its progressive role. The masses of the Turkic nation were revolutionized and actively embraced the struggle for national determination and independence.
By the early twentieth century, the time of the emergence of the national movement in Azerbaijan, the period of “romantic pan-turanism” has been already passed. By the way, this movement, which never acquired the form of a concrete political program, did not attract Musavat’s leaders. Rasulzade wrote that it”...was easy to understand that a movement with very contradictory tendencies certainly could not be successful in building the democratic structure of the new Azeri society, which was rising from the ruins of the feudal Middle Ages.”
The process of forming the Azeri nation assured a place for the idea of the Turkic community in the national ideology. Relations of ethnic kinship also played a decisive role in the political life of the Azeri nation. The leaders of Musavat proposed establishing relations between the Turkic nations not on the basis of their tribal identities, but on the basis of the interests of each nation. They renounced a unified Turkic state but maintained that only common interests in the struggle for national liberation and the consolidation of the forces of separate Turkic nations in this struggle could lead to the establishment of active contacts among them. Therefore, this was not a manifestation of panturkism, but rather a joint struggle for real and concrete national ideas.
M.E. Rasulzade stated that, “the leaders of the Musavat party were opposed to romantic pan-turanism.” “Panturanism,” he said, “is a utopia like Lenin’s communism and Magomed’s paradise.” The party recognized a community of national and cultural interests among all Turkic nations, but it regarded their union in a single state as impossible. It above all sought to achieve the liberation of Turkic nations and their transformation into independent states.
Musavat’s ideologists recognized Turkism not as a political, but as a “scientific-philosophical-aesthetic movement” which is a method of struggling for the cultural unification of the Turkic nations. “We are Narodniks in policy and Turkists in Culture!” stated M.E. Rasulzade.
Another important component of the party’s ideology was the idea of the solidarity of Muslim nations and countries. Musavat’s leaders interpreted Islamic solidarity as interaction and mutual assistance in a joint struggle for a common goal: the national liberation of Muslim nations from the colonial yoke of European powers. All this shared nothing in common with panislamism, of which Musavat’s leaders were traditionally accused in Soviet historiography.
Musavat consistently adhered to secular ideas. The party favored the exclusion (or at least the limitation of the activities) of clerics from fields having no direct relation to the performance of religious rites. On the other hand, the party was prepared to use and did use religion as a method of political struggle for national independence. Knowing that the centuries-old religious prejudices of the nation could not disappear within one day, party leaders used Islamic phraseology in their public speeches as a means to promote the struggle for independence and appeal to the most backward segments of the population. The leaders of Musavat understood that the top ranks of the Muslim clergy were being absorbed within the apparatus of the tsarist autocracy, and that top religious leaders were being used by the regime as accomplices in suppressing even moderate manifestations of the ideas of national liberation.
The top clergy disdained the spiritual agencies that were concentrated in its hands, openly interfering in religious politics on the side of the most reactionary forces. Statements by clerics denouncing Musavat as an enemy of Islam testify to the fact. In this connection M.E. Rasulzade said at the Musavat’s first party Congress in October 1917, “When a person enters the mosque, he must forget policy, party and ideology and pray only to God. The clergy must not be engaged in politics at all and the mosque should be neutral in the political struggle.” The principle of separation of church and state in the Azerbaijan Republic, which was initiated by Musavat, confirms the party’s position. Religion was deemed a private affair, thus enabling Azerbaijan to become the first secular state in the Muslim East.
Characterizing the party’s attitude to pan-islamism, M.E. Rasulzade wrote in his work “About Panturanism”: “Historical experience has showed that by giving birth to the theocratic-clerical-reactionary movement on the one hand, and blocking the appearance of national ideology in the Muslim world on the other, panislamism has hindered the awakening of national self-consciousness in these nations, delays their progress and prevents them from becoming independent. Therefore, the process of awakening of national self-consciousness should be strengthened, because it a primary source of any progress, and only the presence of a realized national “I” can be the basis of national independence.”
Thus, based on Turkic and Islamic solidarity, the Musavat party consistently came out in favor of the national independence of Azerbaijan. Musavat was the first Azerbaijani political organization to forward this idea, and for that it incurred the merciless criticism of the right as well as the left forces. The right accused the party of undermining the fundamentals and independence of Islam by “slogans of Azerbaijanism.” The left parties reproached Musavat for demanding the independence of Azerbaijan which “promotes the creation of the Khan-bek Government” and a breakdown between the leaders of the party and a unified revolutionary front of the working people.
The leadership of Musavat was very well aware of the fact that a strong and independent state can be created in Azerbaijan only on the basis of democratic values. It is not accidental that the main slogans of the party were “freedom, independence and democracy.”
Musavat’s leaders believed that a necessary element of democracy is the principle of national equality. The pivotal principle of the national policy was that Azerbaijan is the common motherland of all citizens living on its territory irrespective of their nationality. Musavat’s parliamentary declaration stated: “...freedom of press, speech, conscience, assemblies, unions and all other civil and national rights should be ensured by the law. Azerbaijan must be a free country... There should not be sons and stepsons in Azerbaijan - Armenian, Russian, Jewish, Georgian, German, Polish and other nations must enjoy the rights of cultural -national autonomy pertaining to all citizens of the Azerbaijan Republic.”
The party leader M.E. Rasulzade stressed that “we are approaching our national aspirations, but our desire is not domination over other nations or suppression of other nations. Our ideal is to work quietly and happily and jointly with other nations, to be an equal member of the world community and to try to be a cultural and progressive nation.”
Accusations against Musavat’s leaders, who often stated that “the Russian revolution brought freedom to the Turks of Russia,” of harboring anti-Russian sentiments are also groundless. The core of the party’s policy with regard to Russia is well-reflected in the following words of M.E. Rasulzade: “We do not have hostility toward the Russian nation, on the contrary, we wish only the best. But at the same time we are enemies of Russian imperialism, which took us into its chariot using violence and prevents us from regulating of our life and developing our culture as we would like.” The above-mentioned facts testify to the fact that Musavat was a reformist, national-democratic party occupying a left-centrist position in the national movement.