Tweet
THE FORMULA OF SUCCESS OF THE POST-SOVIET GOVERNMENT
James Hakobyan
Lragir
Jan 8 2008
Armenia
Perhaps only the Armenian opposition understand best the opposition
of Georgia who complain of fraud in the presidential election. They
complain, whereas the government is celebrating victory, and the
international observers are pouring "oil" to this victory, stating
that a truly democratic election was held although there are some
drawbacks which need to be eliminated. Meanwhile, there are drawbacks
in the election systems of all the countries, including Armenia,
which became known after the parliamentary election of May 12, 2007.
We used to think before that the elections in our country are rigged,
and the voting is fair in some polling stations only to display them
to observers. However, on May 12 the international observers told us
that in reality the election was fair in all the polling stations,
there were only some drawbacks which need to be eliminated. We may
not doubt that the international observers will say the same thing
after the voting of February 19 or March 5, if there is a second
round. They will say the election was half a step or a step toward
progress but the government needs to work hard to have more dynamic
progress in the parliamentary election in four years.
Then the same international observers will say there is need for
continuous reforms, improvement of election legislation, improvement
of voters' registers, separation of business and government to prevent
money from being a deciding factor in the election process.
There may be also separate observations regarding the menus of
Armenian restaurants to improve and innovate them from election to
election. But the latter observations will not be for the society in
general because it is clear that the menu of restaurants is not the
business of the society, therefore people should not be loaded with
unnecessary information.
After all this it is amazing that for instance Armenia had joined
the initiative of Russia and several other Central Asian states to
reduce the number of the OSCE observation missions. What did the OSCE
observers do wrong? It is true that Vardan Oskanyan had explained
later that the OSCE needed this initiative more than us, but what if
the OSCE is hurt and tells some bitter words to the Armenian government
in the presidential election because it did not appreciate its loyalty
on May 12, 2007? On the other hand, however, the OSCE will take into
account that the notion of Armenian government is highly relative. Who
is this government: Robert Kocharyan who has joined Russia's initiative
or Serge Sargsyan whose stance on this initiative is not known?
On the other hand, however, it is clear that the OSCE will not act in
spite of anyone but will pursue its own interests or the interests
of the countries which make the core of this organization, namely
the United States. Everyone has understood this, and there are no
secrets. Generally, no observation mission is intended to promote
democracy or to protect human rights. Those are mere statements they
use when they want and when it is convenient. The example of Georgia
confirmed this. What is underway in that country has nothing to do
with human rights and democracy, when a TV company is closed down
and they state it works against the state, or when the second person
of the country states that violence was used to repress protests
because they were feared to grow and spread. After those nonsensical
explanations the election is declared as democratic by both Western
and CIS observers. This already means that Sahakashvili has succeeded
satisfying all the three - the United States, Russia and Europe. Here
is the formula of success of any post-soviet government - meet the
interests of great powers rather than their own society, and you are
government until someone else supports those interests better.
James Hakobyan
Lragir
Jan 8 2008
Armenia
Perhaps only the Armenian opposition understand best the opposition
of Georgia who complain of fraud in the presidential election. They
complain, whereas the government is celebrating victory, and the
international observers are pouring "oil" to this victory, stating
that a truly democratic election was held although there are some
drawbacks which need to be eliminated. Meanwhile, there are drawbacks
in the election systems of all the countries, including Armenia,
which became known after the parliamentary election of May 12, 2007.
We used to think before that the elections in our country are rigged,
and the voting is fair in some polling stations only to display them
to observers. However, on May 12 the international observers told us
that in reality the election was fair in all the polling stations,
there were only some drawbacks which need to be eliminated. We may
not doubt that the international observers will say the same thing
after the voting of February 19 or March 5, if there is a second
round. They will say the election was half a step or a step toward
progress but the government needs to work hard to have more dynamic
progress in the parliamentary election in four years.
Then the same international observers will say there is need for
continuous reforms, improvement of election legislation, improvement
of voters' registers, separation of business and government to prevent
money from being a deciding factor in the election process.
There may be also separate observations regarding the menus of
Armenian restaurants to improve and innovate them from election to
election. But the latter observations will not be for the society in
general because it is clear that the menu of restaurants is not the
business of the society, therefore people should not be loaded with
unnecessary information.
After all this it is amazing that for instance Armenia had joined
the initiative of Russia and several other Central Asian states to
reduce the number of the OSCE observation missions. What did the OSCE
observers do wrong? It is true that Vardan Oskanyan had explained
later that the OSCE needed this initiative more than us, but what if
the OSCE is hurt and tells some bitter words to the Armenian government
in the presidential election because it did not appreciate its loyalty
on May 12, 2007? On the other hand, however, the OSCE will take into
account that the notion of Armenian government is highly relative. Who
is this government: Robert Kocharyan who has joined Russia's initiative
or Serge Sargsyan whose stance on this initiative is not known?
On the other hand, however, it is clear that the OSCE will not act in
spite of anyone but will pursue its own interests or the interests
of the countries which make the core of this organization, namely
the United States. Everyone has understood this, and there are no
secrets. Generally, no observation mission is intended to promote
democracy or to protect human rights. Those are mere statements they
use when they want and when it is convenient. The example of Georgia
confirmed this. What is underway in that country has nothing to do
with human rights and democracy, when a TV company is closed down
and they state it works against the state, or when the second person
of the country states that violence was used to repress protests
because they were feared to grow and spread. After those nonsensical
explanations the election is declared as democratic by both Western
and CIS observers. This already means that Sahakashvili has succeeded
satisfying all the three - the United States, Russia and Europe. Here
is the formula of success of any post-soviet government - meet the
interests of great powers rather than their own society, and you are
government until someone else supports those interests better.