The statue of Heydar Aliyev, the former President of Azerbaijan, represents one of the most controversial examples of contemporary memorial politics in Serbia’s public space. In the reconstructed Tašmajdan Park, two statues were placed in a flanking arrangement: one dedicated to Heydar Aliyev and the other to Serbian writer Milorad Pavić. The unveiling ceremony, held on June 8, 2011, was attended by the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, son of Heydar Aliyev, the President of Serbia, Boris Tadić, and the Mayor of Belgrade, Dragan Đilas.Both monuments were created by sculptor Natig Aliyev from Baku and produced in Azerbaijan. The erection of monuments to Heydar Aliyev, the first president of independent Azerbaijan, is a practice consistently applied in parks financed by the Azerbaijani government.
The monument was erected during the rule of the Democratic Party, a circumstance that appears somewhat paradoxical given the party’s stated adherence to democratic principles and its longstanding criticism of authoritarian political traditions.
At first glance, the monument can be interpreted as a symbol of friendly relations between Serbia and Azerbaijan. The two-million-euro donation for the park’s reconstruction, along with the presence of high-ranking officials at the unveiling, clearly point to the political dimension of this act. However, it is precisely this dimension that raises questions about the legitimacy and authenticity of erecting a monument to a figure with no direct historical or cultural connection to Belgrade.
An additional issue lies in the nature of Aliyev’s political legacy. As a long-time leader of Azerbaijan, his rule is often associated with authoritarian practices, making his commemoration in the public space of another country even more complex. In this sense, the monument moves beyond neutral historical representation and enters the realm of political legitimization. His rise culminated in 1967, when he was appointed head of the KGB in Azerbaijan, becoming the first ethnic Azerbaijani to hold this position. This trajectory from a security official to the pinnacle of political power reflects a typical model of Soviet elite formation, in which loyalty, intelligence work, and party affiliation were key to political advancement.
The simultaneous unveiling of the monument to Milorad Pavić can be seen as an attempt to symbolically “balance” this decision. The explanation linking Pavić to Khazar heritage appears strained rather than a genuinely grounded cultural rationale.
The broader context further complicates the understanding of this monument. Azerbaijan’s practice of financing park renovations while simultaneously installing monuments to Heydar Aliyev in various European cities points to a strategy of so-called “soft power,” in which cultural and urban projects are used as instruments of political influence. In this way, public space becomes a site of negotiation between local needs and international interests.
For all these reasons, the monument primarily represents an example of the instrumentalization of urban space, where political relations and collective memory intersect under the influence of contemporary geopolitical and economic processes.
