Tweet
Elections, Politics, and Accountability: An Interview with Civilitas
Director Salpi Ghazarian
by Nanore Barsoumian
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2012/05/05/elections-politics-and-accountability-an-interview-with-civilitas-director-salpi-ghazarian/
May 5, 2012
YEREVAN, Armenia - The Armenian Weekly assistant editor Nanore
Barsoumian sat down with Civilitas Foundation Director Salpi Ghazarian
for a discussion on the upcoming Parliamentary elections. One of the
aims of Civilitas is to promote the development of democracy in the
country, through initiatives that support education, rural
development, and environmental awareness. Civilitas has followed the
election campaign closely. It has conducted polls throughout the
country. Leading up to the elections, the foundation also hosted a
series of debates and interviews.
Salpi Ghazarian
N.B. - Talking to people on the street, I'm hearing many express their
lack of faith in the election process. They don't think their votes
will really matter. What has Civilitas found through its polls? Is
anything moving voters? Are politicians really appealing to voters?
S.G. - There are two fundamental things that have worked to turn off
Armenia's electorate from the electoral processes. One is the actors
themselves; and the other is the absence of accountability by the
actors. What people will tell you is that a) I don't believe the
process will necessarily reflect my choice and my vote; and b) even if
it does, there has not been accountability for what any of the
potential candidates have done and so I don't have hope that what will
come will be any better. There's a lack of accountability, which leads
to a lack of hope and, therefore, lack of commitment to the electoral
process. At the same time, there has been a palpable conviction that
the elections that came before did not truly reflect the people's
voice. That combination has led to incredible apathy. The voting is
not done either with conviction and hope, or with a rational sense of
`there's been accountability.' Neither exist: neither the hope, nor
the rational expectation. They're dismissive.
N.B. - How deep are party loyalties among voters?
S.G. - they're not - not among the voters and not among the leadership.
The question is off. You know why? This is basically the same party.
If you look at 1991 and all those who were in power then, they
basically split off and formed a bunch of parties. They move within
them, again, because the parties are not ideological. Except for the
ARF, which has a clear domestic policy.
N.B. - Many potential voters list joblessness as a number one issue.
Have politicians been able to convince people that they're going to
change that? Is unemployment also their number one issue?
S.G. - I think that the politicians and the public really are talking
about the same two fundamental areas. One is the economy: jobs, decent
wages. The other is a sense of justice. Those are the two key areas.
And those are the two key areas that people will tell you about; and
the politicians talk about. Whether they do them in any sort of
convincing, thought-through, strategic, ideological ways that convince
me that this party can get there - that's something else. The
desperation and disappointment is so deep, that it's not as if there
is dialog on the processes and the approaches and the ideologies that
are different. There is an effort to convince the public that `yes,
you can trust me.' It's really at that emotional level. It's not
strategic. It's not ideological.
N.B. - When you talk about justice, do you mean the judicial system, or
do you mean justice in general, like the system is unfair.
S.G. - Well, it's all the same, isn't it? Yes, the system as it has
evolved is characterized as unfair. People feel, and they will tell
you that all they want is a just system, where they have equal access,
equal opportunity, and equal rights; where they're treated the same
way as somebody's son. Of course, that's something that's in the air - a
general attitude of inequality, of the rulers and the ruled. However,
the continuation of that is that if I feel I've been wronged, because
of that general environment of impunity and different rights for
different people, then I should have recourse through the judicial
system, which I don't; or if I do, I don't believe that I do. It's a
combination.
N.B. - There are rumors that a deal was made between the Republican
party and Heritage. There's also talk of a new coalition forming with
Prosperous and others. What do you make of these potential new
partnerships?
S.G. - Maybe there is an agreement between the Heritage Party and the
Republicans. And if so, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Politics
is about deals. The question is how much do you give and how much do
you get. If you vote for Heritage, you vote for Heritage based on
either hope that they will bring more change, or because you've liked
what they've done up to now. For one or the other reason you will vote
for them. Now, if there is in fact a deal of some sort with the
Republicans, it depends on how that deal plays out. If that deal plays
out so that Heritage can continue to voice issues and have a bigger
platform, maybe that's a good thing. If that means Heritage will cease
to be critical of certain people and certain actions, that's a bad
thing. But that's something that people are going to be able to judge.
The deal in and of itself is not a bad thing. Politics is about deals,
it's not about revolution. It's not about calling for people's blood.
That's not politics. Georgia had its revolution, and now that
Saakashvili can't run again, every sort of manipulation is taking
place to see what they can do to keep the ruling party in power. We
will now see if there was a democratic revolution. So, was there a
deal? Perhaps. Is that necessarily a bad thing? No. Could it be a bad
thing? It could be.
We're not accustomed to making nuanced deals here, because the deals
aren't over ideology but over power. That's what Prosperous has been
saying, right? Prosperous has been saying, the point of these
elections is to be able to break the monopoly of one party, so that
every issue will have to be based on deals; so that everyone will have
to take other opinions into consideration.
Coalitions are normal things, if they're real coalitions, based on
give and take over programs and ideologies.
N.B. - Do you think the 30,000 or so observers - spread over the 2,000 or
so voting stations - will actually make a difference? Will it translate
to less vote rigging, and more transparency?
S.G. - Observers can make us more aware. So what does impact mean? Does
it make people more aware of the need to be accurate, and transparent?
Sure. Does it necessarily change the outcome? Not necessarily. There
are observers, and there are observers. The OSCE observers are the
ones who are mandated to issue a statement at the end that constitutes
Europe's assessment of the validity of the elections. What they say
will impact public opinion. It has no impact on the election itself.
You screw up, you screw up. They can say, you screwed up a lot,
little, better, less, more, a lot but not enough to affect the
outcome, a lot to affect the outcome. They can say all sorts of
things. They choose their words very carefully, because they know that
their words have a huge impact on public opinion; and depending on
public opinion, the public will decide whether they will - on the
7th - accept the results that are announced, or whether they go out on
the street. Will they go out on the street for two days, and scream
because it feels good, or will they go out on the street for two
months until what? Do they want an `until...'? So, does it [have an
impact]? Yes, kind of, but not really, but yes kind of.
Look, who is Vartoush Mayrig going to vote for, if not the current
gyughapet's party. Go for authority, right? Who votes for the Greens
in the U.S.? You go for the Democrats or the Republicans, because you
don't want to throw away your vote. All of those factors are still
factors here. It's just that because the process is neither
transparent nor responsive, people don't know what to believe. So
there, I further confused you and haven't answered your question. But
really, that's how it is.
N.B. - Another recent development is that the Prosperous Party, the
Armenian National Congress, and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation
have demanded that the list of voters be made public.
S.G. - What they're asking is that the list of those who actually vote
be made public [the day after elections], which then allows you to
see, how my dead grandmother voted. Clearly this has been a problem.
It allows you to compare and cross-validate [the list of registered
voters with the actual list of voters]. So there is less room to
manipulate.
N.B. - Then there is the issue of bribery that's been coming up... For
instance, according to one report, Nikol Pashinyan accused his
opponent of hosting graduation parties free of charge at his
restaurant, for students and parents. You can say that he's being a
good guy, that he's being charitable; or you can say that he's trying
to bribe them.
S.G. - Is that a bribe? Or is it the expected `pork' - something all
politicians in office dole out to gain favor? Is that using your
resources to convince voters of your real and potential power? Where
do you draw the line? Sometimes it is crude, obvious, and in your
face. Other times, it is nuanced and not so obvious. Then there's
outright saying: `Look, you guys all know that the Hanrabedagans
[Republicans] are going to come into our village and put in a water
distribution system. Now, we don't want them not to get elected,
right?' What do you do? Is that a bribe? Is it blackmail? Is it simple
pressure? People complain that the Prosperous Armenia party gives out
potatoes and other kinds of help. Well, Republicans pass out
principals positions. Is that a bribe, or is that job security because
the party's in office? Is that the only thing driving the election
process? Perhaps it is, as opposed to other places where ten things
drive the election process. At the end of the day, do they deliver
what they promised, or was it a onetime `gift'? And, to continue on
that theme, somebody must be taking that money, right? It's not just
the giving it; it's the taking it. You took the money, so what are you
complaining about? It's very complicated.
N.B. - What about the issue of businessmen in politics? That's another
issue that has been coming up about how many businessmen have been on
the Republican list in the majoritarian constituencies. Is that a
problem?
S.G. - Do you know how many millionaires are in the U.S. Congress?
Forty-six percent. The point is, the world over, that is what happens
with business and politics, because attaining power is an expensive
process. The problem in Armenia is that the political field is still
small, and directly interdependent with the business world. The
justice system is not egalitarian and so the more powerful have
greater access. And, the media doesn't work as it should. There's no
fair, independent, reliable oversight. It's a power game among the
elite as opposed to competition amongst ideologies, strategies,
programs. To be fair, there are a lot of really interesting people on
the list this time, especially in the majoritarian seats. [There are]
interesting independent women. Do they stand a chance? I don't know.
N.B. - What names pop up? What are some of the fresh faces running this time?
S.G. - Satig Seyranyan: She's the editor of a newspaper `168 Jam' [168
hours]. She's a new face. Vladimir Karapetyan is running as an
independent. He's with the ANC. There are interesting new young faces.
N.B. - That's encouraging. Civil society. I'm increasingly seeing more
civil society movements emerge - whether it's the environmental
movement, or the one for women's rights. They are activists, but I'm
not really aware of them being part of any political parties, or
entering into politics. They truly care about things, but I'm not
hearing them talking about politics, or getting into politics. Why do
you think that is?
S.G. - They're proud that they're not, because politics has become such
a dirty word. They're proud that they're not playing a dirty game.
They're proud that they're neither manipulating, nor being
manipulated. They are very afraid of being manipulated and co-opted.
Having said that, I think that strategically they are going to have to
get politically active. It's an opportunity for them to increase their
base of support, and it's an opportunity for them to hold actual
political actors accountable.
N.B. - No one's tapping into them? I mean, for politicians too, that is
a lot of active, caring, passionate people.
S.G. - It's on both sides. They are very-very hesitant about cooperating
[with politicians]. And the parties have not reached out to them the
right way. For both directions it's a problem. It's a wasted resource.
It's a wasted opportunity, especially at this point in time.
From: A. Papazian
Director Salpi Ghazarian
by Nanore Barsoumian
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2012/05/05/elections-politics-and-accountability-an-interview-with-civilitas-director-salpi-ghazarian/
May 5, 2012
YEREVAN, Armenia - The Armenian Weekly assistant editor Nanore
Barsoumian sat down with Civilitas Foundation Director Salpi Ghazarian
for a discussion on the upcoming Parliamentary elections. One of the
aims of Civilitas is to promote the development of democracy in the
country, through initiatives that support education, rural
development, and environmental awareness. Civilitas has followed the
election campaign closely. It has conducted polls throughout the
country. Leading up to the elections, the foundation also hosted a
series of debates and interviews.
Salpi Ghazarian
N.B. - Talking to people on the street, I'm hearing many express their
lack of faith in the election process. They don't think their votes
will really matter. What has Civilitas found through its polls? Is
anything moving voters? Are politicians really appealing to voters?
S.G. - There are two fundamental things that have worked to turn off
Armenia's electorate from the electoral processes. One is the actors
themselves; and the other is the absence of accountability by the
actors. What people will tell you is that a) I don't believe the
process will necessarily reflect my choice and my vote; and b) even if
it does, there has not been accountability for what any of the
potential candidates have done and so I don't have hope that what will
come will be any better. There's a lack of accountability, which leads
to a lack of hope and, therefore, lack of commitment to the electoral
process. At the same time, there has been a palpable conviction that
the elections that came before did not truly reflect the people's
voice. That combination has led to incredible apathy. The voting is
not done either with conviction and hope, or with a rational sense of
`there's been accountability.' Neither exist: neither the hope, nor
the rational expectation. They're dismissive.
N.B. - How deep are party loyalties among voters?
S.G. - they're not - not among the voters and not among the leadership.
The question is off. You know why? This is basically the same party.
If you look at 1991 and all those who were in power then, they
basically split off and formed a bunch of parties. They move within
them, again, because the parties are not ideological. Except for the
ARF, which has a clear domestic policy.
N.B. - Many potential voters list joblessness as a number one issue.
Have politicians been able to convince people that they're going to
change that? Is unemployment also their number one issue?
S.G. - I think that the politicians and the public really are talking
about the same two fundamental areas. One is the economy: jobs, decent
wages. The other is a sense of justice. Those are the two key areas.
And those are the two key areas that people will tell you about; and
the politicians talk about. Whether they do them in any sort of
convincing, thought-through, strategic, ideological ways that convince
me that this party can get there - that's something else. The
desperation and disappointment is so deep, that it's not as if there
is dialog on the processes and the approaches and the ideologies that
are different. There is an effort to convince the public that `yes,
you can trust me.' It's really at that emotional level. It's not
strategic. It's not ideological.
N.B. - When you talk about justice, do you mean the judicial system, or
do you mean justice in general, like the system is unfair.
S.G. - Well, it's all the same, isn't it? Yes, the system as it has
evolved is characterized as unfair. People feel, and they will tell
you that all they want is a just system, where they have equal access,
equal opportunity, and equal rights; where they're treated the same
way as somebody's son. Of course, that's something that's in the air - a
general attitude of inequality, of the rulers and the ruled. However,
the continuation of that is that if I feel I've been wronged, because
of that general environment of impunity and different rights for
different people, then I should have recourse through the judicial
system, which I don't; or if I do, I don't believe that I do. It's a
combination.
N.B. - There are rumors that a deal was made between the Republican
party and Heritage. There's also talk of a new coalition forming with
Prosperous and others. What do you make of these potential new
partnerships?
S.G. - Maybe there is an agreement between the Heritage Party and the
Republicans. And if so, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Politics
is about deals. The question is how much do you give and how much do
you get. If you vote for Heritage, you vote for Heritage based on
either hope that they will bring more change, or because you've liked
what they've done up to now. For one or the other reason you will vote
for them. Now, if there is in fact a deal of some sort with the
Republicans, it depends on how that deal plays out. If that deal plays
out so that Heritage can continue to voice issues and have a bigger
platform, maybe that's a good thing. If that means Heritage will cease
to be critical of certain people and certain actions, that's a bad
thing. But that's something that people are going to be able to judge.
The deal in and of itself is not a bad thing. Politics is about deals,
it's not about revolution. It's not about calling for people's blood.
That's not politics. Georgia had its revolution, and now that
Saakashvili can't run again, every sort of manipulation is taking
place to see what they can do to keep the ruling party in power. We
will now see if there was a democratic revolution. So, was there a
deal? Perhaps. Is that necessarily a bad thing? No. Could it be a bad
thing? It could be.
We're not accustomed to making nuanced deals here, because the deals
aren't over ideology but over power. That's what Prosperous has been
saying, right? Prosperous has been saying, the point of these
elections is to be able to break the monopoly of one party, so that
every issue will have to be based on deals; so that everyone will have
to take other opinions into consideration.
Coalitions are normal things, if they're real coalitions, based on
give and take over programs and ideologies.
N.B. - Do you think the 30,000 or so observers - spread over the 2,000 or
so voting stations - will actually make a difference? Will it translate
to less vote rigging, and more transparency?
S.G. - Observers can make us more aware. So what does impact mean? Does
it make people more aware of the need to be accurate, and transparent?
Sure. Does it necessarily change the outcome? Not necessarily. There
are observers, and there are observers. The OSCE observers are the
ones who are mandated to issue a statement at the end that constitutes
Europe's assessment of the validity of the elections. What they say
will impact public opinion. It has no impact on the election itself.
You screw up, you screw up. They can say, you screwed up a lot,
little, better, less, more, a lot but not enough to affect the
outcome, a lot to affect the outcome. They can say all sorts of
things. They choose their words very carefully, because they know that
their words have a huge impact on public opinion; and depending on
public opinion, the public will decide whether they will - on the
7th - accept the results that are announced, or whether they go out on
the street. Will they go out on the street for two days, and scream
because it feels good, or will they go out on the street for two
months until what? Do they want an `until...'? So, does it [have an
impact]? Yes, kind of, but not really, but yes kind of.
Look, who is Vartoush Mayrig going to vote for, if not the current
gyughapet's party. Go for authority, right? Who votes for the Greens
in the U.S.? You go for the Democrats or the Republicans, because you
don't want to throw away your vote. All of those factors are still
factors here. It's just that because the process is neither
transparent nor responsive, people don't know what to believe. So
there, I further confused you and haven't answered your question. But
really, that's how it is.
N.B. - Another recent development is that the Prosperous Party, the
Armenian National Congress, and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation
have demanded that the list of voters be made public.
S.G. - What they're asking is that the list of those who actually vote
be made public [the day after elections], which then allows you to
see, how my dead grandmother voted. Clearly this has been a problem.
It allows you to compare and cross-validate [the list of registered
voters with the actual list of voters]. So there is less room to
manipulate.
N.B. - Then there is the issue of bribery that's been coming up... For
instance, according to one report, Nikol Pashinyan accused his
opponent of hosting graduation parties free of charge at his
restaurant, for students and parents. You can say that he's being a
good guy, that he's being charitable; or you can say that he's trying
to bribe them.
S.G. - Is that a bribe? Or is it the expected `pork' - something all
politicians in office dole out to gain favor? Is that using your
resources to convince voters of your real and potential power? Where
do you draw the line? Sometimes it is crude, obvious, and in your
face. Other times, it is nuanced and not so obvious. Then there's
outright saying: `Look, you guys all know that the Hanrabedagans
[Republicans] are going to come into our village and put in a water
distribution system. Now, we don't want them not to get elected,
right?' What do you do? Is that a bribe? Is it blackmail? Is it simple
pressure? People complain that the Prosperous Armenia party gives out
potatoes and other kinds of help. Well, Republicans pass out
principals positions. Is that a bribe, or is that job security because
the party's in office? Is that the only thing driving the election
process? Perhaps it is, as opposed to other places where ten things
drive the election process. At the end of the day, do they deliver
what they promised, or was it a onetime `gift'? And, to continue on
that theme, somebody must be taking that money, right? It's not just
the giving it; it's the taking it. You took the money, so what are you
complaining about? It's very complicated.
N.B. - What about the issue of businessmen in politics? That's another
issue that has been coming up about how many businessmen have been on
the Republican list in the majoritarian constituencies. Is that a
problem?
S.G. - Do you know how many millionaires are in the U.S. Congress?
Forty-six percent. The point is, the world over, that is what happens
with business and politics, because attaining power is an expensive
process. The problem in Armenia is that the political field is still
small, and directly interdependent with the business world. The
justice system is not egalitarian and so the more powerful have
greater access. And, the media doesn't work as it should. There's no
fair, independent, reliable oversight. It's a power game among the
elite as opposed to competition amongst ideologies, strategies,
programs. To be fair, there are a lot of really interesting people on
the list this time, especially in the majoritarian seats. [There are]
interesting independent women. Do they stand a chance? I don't know.
N.B. - What names pop up? What are some of the fresh faces running this time?
S.G. - Satig Seyranyan: She's the editor of a newspaper `168 Jam' [168
hours]. She's a new face. Vladimir Karapetyan is running as an
independent. He's with the ANC. There are interesting new young faces.
N.B. - That's encouraging. Civil society. I'm increasingly seeing more
civil society movements emerge - whether it's the environmental
movement, or the one for women's rights. They are activists, but I'm
not really aware of them being part of any political parties, or
entering into politics. They truly care about things, but I'm not
hearing them talking about politics, or getting into politics. Why do
you think that is?
S.G. - They're proud that they're not, because politics has become such
a dirty word. They're proud that they're not playing a dirty game.
They're proud that they're neither manipulating, nor being
manipulated. They are very afraid of being manipulated and co-opted.
Having said that, I think that strategically they are going to have to
get politically active. It's an opportunity for them to increase their
base of support, and it's an opportunity for them to hold actual
political actors accountable.
N.B. - No one's tapping into them? I mean, for politicians too, that is
a lot of active, caring, passionate people.
S.G. - It's on both sides. They are very-very hesitant about cooperating
[with politicians]. And the parties have not reached out to them the
right way. For both directions it's a problem. It's a wasted resource.
It's a wasted opportunity, especially at this point in time.
From: A. Papazian