Tweet
2013 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS: A TALE OF POWER MONOPOLY AND DISENCHANTMENT
by Houry Mayissian
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/01/31/2013-presidential-elections-a-tale-of-power-monopoly-and-disenchantment/
January 31, 2013
When you visit Armenia, you hear stories. Good stories and sad ones.
Stories that inspire hope, others that fill you with despair.
The Presidential Palace in Yerevan One story I heard from a family
friend-let's call him Armen-on my most recent visit just after the
May 2012 parliamentary elections has been occupying my mind for some
days. Armen is a hard-working, humble man.
He'll make you feel immediately welcome and share bread with you,
no questions asked. He is what you love about Armenia. Armen is also
a member of an opposition party-a loyal rank and file type of member
who's in it because he believes.
Armen's son and daughter-in-law live with him and his wife. His
daughter-in-law is a teacher at a public school, and is the family's
main bread-winner with a stable job, or, to put it more accurately,
a stable job that comes at a cost. Before the parliamentary elections,
Armen's daughter-in-law and all other teachers at the school received
instructions to strictly vote for the Republican Party of Armenia.
They were also "advised" to recruit at least five family members or
friends each to vote for the Republican Party. On election day last
May, Armen was the only member of his family to vote for the party
of his choice.
Armenia is on the verge of elections again. That ultimate test for
whether a nation is mature enough to exercise its right to vote and
whether its leadership is democratic enough to afford that right. So
far we have, by and large, failed that test. Previous elections have
been marred by opposition candidates crying foul. We've had mass
protests and we've seen, more than once, the army deployed to quell
these protests. We've witnessed arrests, casualties, even deaths.
Vote-buying, ballot-stuffing, voter intimidation, and the use of
administrative resources by the authorities have been a hallmark of
elections in our country.
Ahead of its sixth presidential elections, the country finds itself
in a "peculiar" situation: Three of the four main opposition forces
represented in the National Assembly-the Prosperous Armenia Party,
the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), and the Armenian National
Congress-have decided to not field candidates. The Prosperous Armenia
Party provided no explanation for its decision, while Ter-Petrossian
of the Armenian National Congress cited his age. The ARF pointed to
the "shadowy" and pre-determined nature of elections in Armenia as
its reason to not put forth its own candidate.
With these parties not participating, contending incumbent President
Serge Sarkisian are seven candidates: former foreign affairs minister,
Raffi Hovannisian; former prime minister, Hrant Bagratian; former
foreign affairs minister of Nagorno-Karabagh, Arman Melikian,;
chairman of the National Self-Determination Union, Paruyr Hayrikian;
leader of the National Accord Party, Aram Harutiunian,; a (so-called)
specialist in epic studies, Vartan Sedrakian; and director of Radio
Hye, Andrias Ghukasyan.
Unheard-of candidates, hunger strikes, and talk of withdrawals have
come to characterize these elections, not the competition of programs
or ideas. Many don't believe that any of the above candidates can be
a serious challenger to Sarkisian's re-election. Read any Armenian
newspaper today and you'll see an overwhelming consensus that the
country is headed towards five more years of Sarkisian.
That the country's main opposition forces have decided not to field
candidates has undoubtedly had its impact on creating a competition
vacuum in the country. In reality, however, the conditions for such
a competition vacuum were created prior to the official decision by
these parties to not contest. Would these parties have chosen the same
path had they believed they stood a genuine chance to participate in
truly fair and competitive elections? Unlikely.
The monopolization of power by the authorities has rendered political
competition in Armenia impermissible. It has been practiced, bluntly
or subtly, on several occasions, and every opposition party in Armenia
has come to bear its brunt in one way or another. The ARF had its
share of the National Assembly votes slashed from 13 percent in
2007 to 5.6 percent in 2012 after leaving the coalition in 2009 (in
opposition to the signing of the Armenia-Turkey protocols). The most
high-profile member of the Prosperous Armenia Party and potential
presidential candidate, Vartan Oskanian, found himself fending off
money laundering charges after he became a tad too critical of the
government. And Armenian National Congress' Levon Ter-Petrossian
knows too well what it means to challenge the government first as
ruling president and then as an opposition presidential candidate.
This monopolization of power has affected the attitude of Armenia's
voters, too. According to Gallup polling, as little as 18 percent of
Armenia's voters have confidence in the honesty of elections in the
country. Perhaps it is due to this disillusionment that when faced
with threats or offered bribes, Armenia's voters have chosen to give
up their vote-their ultimate right as citizens of a free country,
their most important responsibility towards their country, and the
most powerful tool they have to determine the course of its future.
In two weeks, Armenians go to the polls again amid widespread loss of
faith both among the voters and political forces in the meaning of
it all. Perhaps no election in the country's history has emphasized
the lack of confidence in the electoral process as much. Democratic
elections have two key ingredients: people who understand their rights
and exercise them, and leaders who respect the rights and the will of
the people. When at least one of these ingredients is in place, there
is hope for democracy to take root in a country. It is only when such
a day comes, that we can expect an end to pretend, pre-determined,
meaningless elections in Armenia.
by Houry Mayissian
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/01/31/2013-presidential-elections-a-tale-of-power-monopoly-and-disenchantment/
January 31, 2013
When you visit Armenia, you hear stories. Good stories and sad ones.
Stories that inspire hope, others that fill you with despair.
The Presidential Palace in Yerevan One story I heard from a family
friend-let's call him Armen-on my most recent visit just after the
May 2012 parliamentary elections has been occupying my mind for some
days. Armen is a hard-working, humble man.
He'll make you feel immediately welcome and share bread with you,
no questions asked. He is what you love about Armenia. Armen is also
a member of an opposition party-a loyal rank and file type of member
who's in it because he believes.
Armen's son and daughter-in-law live with him and his wife. His
daughter-in-law is a teacher at a public school, and is the family's
main bread-winner with a stable job, or, to put it more accurately,
a stable job that comes at a cost. Before the parliamentary elections,
Armen's daughter-in-law and all other teachers at the school received
instructions to strictly vote for the Republican Party of Armenia.
They were also "advised" to recruit at least five family members or
friends each to vote for the Republican Party. On election day last
May, Armen was the only member of his family to vote for the party
of his choice.
Armenia is on the verge of elections again. That ultimate test for
whether a nation is mature enough to exercise its right to vote and
whether its leadership is democratic enough to afford that right. So
far we have, by and large, failed that test. Previous elections have
been marred by opposition candidates crying foul. We've had mass
protests and we've seen, more than once, the army deployed to quell
these protests. We've witnessed arrests, casualties, even deaths.
Vote-buying, ballot-stuffing, voter intimidation, and the use of
administrative resources by the authorities have been a hallmark of
elections in our country.
Ahead of its sixth presidential elections, the country finds itself
in a "peculiar" situation: Three of the four main opposition forces
represented in the National Assembly-the Prosperous Armenia Party,
the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), and the Armenian National
Congress-have decided to not field candidates. The Prosperous Armenia
Party provided no explanation for its decision, while Ter-Petrossian
of the Armenian National Congress cited his age. The ARF pointed to
the "shadowy" and pre-determined nature of elections in Armenia as
its reason to not put forth its own candidate.
With these parties not participating, contending incumbent President
Serge Sarkisian are seven candidates: former foreign affairs minister,
Raffi Hovannisian; former prime minister, Hrant Bagratian; former
foreign affairs minister of Nagorno-Karabagh, Arman Melikian,;
chairman of the National Self-Determination Union, Paruyr Hayrikian;
leader of the National Accord Party, Aram Harutiunian,; a (so-called)
specialist in epic studies, Vartan Sedrakian; and director of Radio
Hye, Andrias Ghukasyan.
Unheard-of candidates, hunger strikes, and talk of withdrawals have
come to characterize these elections, not the competition of programs
or ideas. Many don't believe that any of the above candidates can be
a serious challenger to Sarkisian's re-election. Read any Armenian
newspaper today and you'll see an overwhelming consensus that the
country is headed towards five more years of Sarkisian.
That the country's main opposition forces have decided not to field
candidates has undoubtedly had its impact on creating a competition
vacuum in the country. In reality, however, the conditions for such
a competition vacuum were created prior to the official decision by
these parties to not contest. Would these parties have chosen the same
path had they believed they stood a genuine chance to participate in
truly fair and competitive elections? Unlikely.
The monopolization of power by the authorities has rendered political
competition in Armenia impermissible. It has been practiced, bluntly
or subtly, on several occasions, and every opposition party in Armenia
has come to bear its brunt in one way or another. The ARF had its
share of the National Assembly votes slashed from 13 percent in
2007 to 5.6 percent in 2012 after leaving the coalition in 2009 (in
opposition to the signing of the Armenia-Turkey protocols). The most
high-profile member of the Prosperous Armenia Party and potential
presidential candidate, Vartan Oskanian, found himself fending off
money laundering charges after he became a tad too critical of the
government. And Armenian National Congress' Levon Ter-Petrossian
knows too well what it means to challenge the government first as
ruling president and then as an opposition presidential candidate.
This monopolization of power has affected the attitude of Armenia's
voters, too. According to Gallup polling, as little as 18 percent of
Armenia's voters have confidence in the honesty of elections in the
country. Perhaps it is due to this disillusionment that when faced
with threats or offered bribes, Armenia's voters have chosen to give
up their vote-their ultimate right as citizens of a free country,
their most important responsibility towards their country, and the
most powerful tool they have to determine the course of its future.
In two weeks, Armenians go to the polls again amid widespread loss of
faith both among the voters and political forces in the meaning of
it all. Perhaps no election in the country's history has emphasized
the lack of confidence in the electoral process as much. Democratic
elections have two key ingredients: people who understand their rights
and exercise them, and leaders who respect the rights and the will of
the people. When at least one of these ingredients is in place, there
is hope for democracy to take root in a country. It is only when such
a day comes, that we can expect an end to pretend, pre-determined,
meaningless elections in Armenia.