Tweet
Serzh Sargsyan, Part II: Armenian president to move on from first turbulent term
ANALYSIS | 08.04.13 | 15:35
Photo: Archive photo/www.president.am
By NAIRA HAYRUMYAN
ArmeniaNow correspondent
Serzh Sargsyan, who began his term as president of Armenia under
extraordinary conditions in 2008 and is ending his first stint in
office in similarly turbulent circumstances now, has had a five-year
period of work in-between that is being praised by his supporters and
criticized by opponents with equal vigor.
A reliable international partner with a recovering economy after the
global storm, a country oriented towards Europe but maintaining allied
ties with Russia... This is a Sargsyan Armenia described by his
supporters and some observers in and outside Armenia.
A country with a virtually non-existent or at best reactive foreign
policy still grappling with the consequences of the global economic
crisis, a country with continuing emigration and falling living
standards that still cannot determine its place on the geopolitical
map being torn by the choice between the West and Russia... This is a
description given to today's Armenia by most of Sargsyan's critics.
On April 9, the 58-year-old leader is due to take the oath as
president of Armenia for a second time. And for the second time the
swearing-in ceremony will take place amid mass public protests against
election fraud. In 2008, the protest had turned into riots and
security forces were employed to quell the unrest as a result of which
10 people were killed. This time, the opposition, which plans street
protests for the Inauguration Day and an `alternative' swearing-in
ceremony for its leader Raffi Hovannisian, has urged the authorities
to refrain from bringing in army units and commandos, but peacefully
listen to the `demands of the people'.
Experts have different opinions regarding the reasons for the
discontent of a significant part of the people, who now support the
opposition movement. Some believe it is a response to the
`detrimental' economic and social policies of the government, which
has failed to curb emigration from the country or raise the living
standards of the population.
On the other hand, director of the Armenian Center for National and
International Studies Manvel Sargsyan says that some of the protesters
in fact thus speak out against what they consider to be another rigged
election.
In any case, it is clear that Sargsyan's policies in the past five
years, both in the field of democracy and the socio-economic sphere,
have failed to meet the expectations and needs of many citizens. (Only
according to the official election count opposition candidate Raffi
Hovannisian polled nearly 37 percent of the vote and the government
seems to admit that this is about the size of the `protest electorate'
that exists in Armenia).
Still, many agree on some achievements made during the past five
years. Among them they primarily mention a certain liberalization of
television and mass media in general. By the presidential election of
2013 television channels that had mainly been controlled by the
authorities indeed become freer and more open, but the situation
changed after the elections as only two television channels, Yerkir
Media and Kentron, now still remain outside the control of the
government. They are, in turn, being controlled by the opposition
Armenian Revolutionary Federation and the opposition-leaning
Prosperous Armenia Party. At a press conference last month Sargsyan,
without naming them, accused these two channels, as well as unnamed
newspapers and online media, of encouraging emigration by presenting
things as if they all were `doom and gloom'.
Government officials have tended to link the increased rate of
emigration mainly with the economic crisis of 2008-09 and its
consequences. However, it is obvious that many people leave because of
rising unemployment and unfair pay. Sargsyan says people do not want
to work in Armenia for a salary of 120,000-150,000 drams (about
$285-$360). At the same time, the Sargsyan government has refused to
raise the minimum rates of wages so that employers are required to pay
employees proper salaries.
Among the achievements of the Sargsyan administration is arguably the
transformation of the Armenian-Turkish relations and the Karabakh
settlement process. Despite a normalization process initiated by
Sargsyan with encouragement from world powers relations with Turkey,
however, still remain in an impasse. Still, the change of Armenia's
rhetoric, which has become more ambitious with regard to Turkey, can
be listed among achievements. At the official level there are still no
territorial claims to Turkey, but it is clear that by 2015 Armenia
will become a player in the geopolitical developments in Asia Minor.
In the Karabakh settlement the Madrid principles that some say are not
beneficial for the Armenian side are still valid, but the geopolitical
balance of forces in the region has changed. Russia has stopped
supplying arms to Azerbaijan, however the risk of a military conflict
is growing, while Sargsyan is praised by some observers for his
administration's firm position that did not yield to pressure to agree
to giving up part of Karabakh territories in exchange for an illusory
peace.
One can safely describe foreign-policy diversification as the main
achievement during the presidency of Sargsyan. The unambiguous and
unconditional dependence on Russia has turned into a tough stance in a
dispute with the Kremlin over the right to build relations with other
centers of power. In particular, in November 2013 Armenia plans to
initial the Association Agreement with the European Union despite
Russia's attempts to derail the process. In short, one can say that
Armenia has given authority to Russia as far as its security is
concerned, while entrusting to the West matters connected with economy
and democratization - a policy praised (based on public statements) by
the new leadership in neighboring Georgia, whose predecessor could not
balance the two directions and ended up having an armed confrontation
with Russia).
Elections seem to remain one of the most vulnerable points in the
policy of the Sargsyan administration. The people appear to have lost
trust in the cornerstone of any democracy, as the outcomes of all
elections are disputed and the authorities do little or nothing to
dispel these doubts. Opposition demands to amend the Election Code are
being rejected, the authorities do not cease to use administrative
resources, and people do not believe in the legitimacy of governments.
(The May 5 elections to the Yerevan City Council could become the
first trial for Sargsyan and his political party during his second
term as president in ongoing efforts to restore trust in the electoral
process in Armenia).
In such conditions an election victory by itself and the subsequent
swearing-in of the winning candidate do not become a truly national
celebration. In 2008, Sargsyan's inauguration for the first term was
held behind closed doors, with only a limited number of dignitaries
and other guests as well as handpicked media invited. In 2013, the
president himself admitted that he did not drink champagne after the
elections. Perhaps this is because he hopes to accomplish during his
second term of presidency what he was not able to do during the first
one.
ANALYSIS | 08.04.13 | 15:35
Photo: Archive photo/www.president.am
By NAIRA HAYRUMYAN
ArmeniaNow correspondent
Serzh Sargsyan, who began his term as president of Armenia under
extraordinary conditions in 2008 and is ending his first stint in
office in similarly turbulent circumstances now, has had a five-year
period of work in-between that is being praised by his supporters and
criticized by opponents with equal vigor.
A reliable international partner with a recovering economy after the
global storm, a country oriented towards Europe but maintaining allied
ties with Russia... This is a Sargsyan Armenia described by his
supporters and some observers in and outside Armenia.
A country with a virtually non-existent or at best reactive foreign
policy still grappling with the consequences of the global economic
crisis, a country with continuing emigration and falling living
standards that still cannot determine its place on the geopolitical
map being torn by the choice between the West and Russia... This is a
description given to today's Armenia by most of Sargsyan's critics.
On April 9, the 58-year-old leader is due to take the oath as
president of Armenia for a second time. And for the second time the
swearing-in ceremony will take place amid mass public protests against
election fraud. In 2008, the protest had turned into riots and
security forces were employed to quell the unrest as a result of which
10 people were killed. This time, the opposition, which plans street
protests for the Inauguration Day and an `alternative' swearing-in
ceremony for its leader Raffi Hovannisian, has urged the authorities
to refrain from bringing in army units and commandos, but peacefully
listen to the `demands of the people'.
Experts have different opinions regarding the reasons for the
discontent of a significant part of the people, who now support the
opposition movement. Some believe it is a response to the
`detrimental' economic and social policies of the government, which
has failed to curb emigration from the country or raise the living
standards of the population.
On the other hand, director of the Armenian Center for National and
International Studies Manvel Sargsyan says that some of the protesters
in fact thus speak out against what they consider to be another rigged
election.
In any case, it is clear that Sargsyan's policies in the past five
years, both in the field of democracy and the socio-economic sphere,
have failed to meet the expectations and needs of many citizens. (Only
according to the official election count opposition candidate Raffi
Hovannisian polled nearly 37 percent of the vote and the government
seems to admit that this is about the size of the `protest electorate'
that exists in Armenia).
Still, many agree on some achievements made during the past five
years. Among them they primarily mention a certain liberalization of
television and mass media in general. By the presidential election of
2013 television channels that had mainly been controlled by the
authorities indeed become freer and more open, but the situation
changed after the elections as only two television channels, Yerkir
Media and Kentron, now still remain outside the control of the
government. They are, in turn, being controlled by the opposition
Armenian Revolutionary Federation and the opposition-leaning
Prosperous Armenia Party. At a press conference last month Sargsyan,
without naming them, accused these two channels, as well as unnamed
newspapers and online media, of encouraging emigration by presenting
things as if they all were `doom and gloom'.
Government officials have tended to link the increased rate of
emigration mainly with the economic crisis of 2008-09 and its
consequences. However, it is obvious that many people leave because of
rising unemployment and unfair pay. Sargsyan says people do not want
to work in Armenia for a salary of 120,000-150,000 drams (about
$285-$360). At the same time, the Sargsyan government has refused to
raise the minimum rates of wages so that employers are required to pay
employees proper salaries.
Among the achievements of the Sargsyan administration is arguably the
transformation of the Armenian-Turkish relations and the Karabakh
settlement process. Despite a normalization process initiated by
Sargsyan with encouragement from world powers relations with Turkey,
however, still remain in an impasse. Still, the change of Armenia's
rhetoric, which has become more ambitious with regard to Turkey, can
be listed among achievements. At the official level there are still no
territorial claims to Turkey, but it is clear that by 2015 Armenia
will become a player in the geopolitical developments in Asia Minor.
In the Karabakh settlement the Madrid principles that some say are not
beneficial for the Armenian side are still valid, but the geopolitical
balance of forces in the region has changed. Russia has stopped
supplying arms to Azerbaijan, however the risk of a military conflict
is growing, while Sargsyan is praised by some observers for his
administration's firm position that did not yield to pressure to agree
to giving up part of Karabakh territories in exchange for an illusory
peace.
One can safely describe foreign-policy diversification as the main
achievement during the presidency of Sargsyan. The unambiguous and
unconditional dependence on Russia has turned into a tough stance in a
dispute with the Kremlin over the right to build relations with other
centers of power. In particular, in November 2013 Armenia plans to
initial the Association Agreement with the European Union despite
Russia's attempts to derail the process. In short, one can say that
Armenia has given authority to Russia as far as its security is
concerned, while entrusting to the West matters connected with economy
and democratization - a policy praised (based on public statements) by
the new leadership in neighboring Georgia, whose predecessor could not
balance the two directions and ended up having an armed confrontation
with Russia).
Elections seem to remain one of the most vulnerable points in the
policy of the Sargsyan administration. The people appear to have lost
trust in the cornerstone of any democracy, as the outcomes of all
elections are disputed and the authorities do little or nothing to
dispel these doubts. Opposition demands to amend the Election Code are
being rejected, the authorities do not cease to use administrative
resources, and people do not believe in the legitimacy of governments.
(The May 5 elections to the Yerevan City Council could become the
first trial for Sargsyan and his political party during his second
term as president in ongoing efforts to restore trust in the electoral
process in Armenia).
In such conditions an election victory by itself and the subsequent
swearing-in of the winning candidate do not become a truly national
celebration. In 2008, Sargsyan's inauguration for the first term was
held behind closed doors, with only a limited number of dignitaries
and other guests as well as handpicked media invited. In 2013, the
president himself admitted that he did not drink champagne after the
elections. Perhaps this is because he hopes to accomplish during his
second term of presidency what he was not able to do during the first
one.