Tweet
POST-ELECTION TRADITION: HOVANNISIAN BECOMES LATEST RUNNER-UP TO DISPUTE ELECTION OUTCOME, HAS FEW OPTIONS AT HAND
VOTE 2013 | 22.02.13 | 14:00
Photolure
By NAIRA HAYRUMYAN
ArmeniaNow correspondent
Almost all presidential elections in the history of independent Armenia
were followed by protests, with the second-placed candidate disputing
the official outcome and claiming massive fraud in favor of the
government candidate. The 2013 election is no exception in this sense.
Heritage Party leader Raffi Hovannisian, who garnered nearly 37 percent
of the vote, insists that a considerable number of votes have been
stolen from him and that in fact he is the rightful winner and not
the incumbent president, Serzh Sargsyan, whose official result is
put above 58 percent.
Thousands of people showing up for post-election rallies in Yerevan
agree with Hovannisian, as many people did in 1996 when the single
opposition presidential candidate, Vazgen Manukyan, was officially
"defeated" by the then incumbent, Levon Ter-Petrosyan; in 2003 when
then opposition leader Stepan Demirchyan challenged president Robert
Kocharyan and finally in 2008 when Ter-Petrosyan, already as an
opposition leader, disputed Sargsyan's win of his first presidential
term. While in all cases street demonstrations would turn nasty at one
point, only the 2008 standoff turned deadly as 10 people were killed
in the March 1-2 clashes in central Yerevan when security personnel
had been brought in to suppress the demonstrations.
The reasons for the Armenian tradition of electoral fraud have
most succinctly been formulated by the U.S. Department of State,
whose spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, citing concerns of international
observers, earlier this week talked about "the lack of impartiality on
the part of [Armenian] public administration officials and the misuse
of administrative resources that resulted in a blurred distinction
between the activities of the state and those of the ruling party." In
fact, by highlighting this circumstance, Nuland accused the governing
Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) of using the levers of the state
to secure its continued hold of power.
In another country such a statement would have been perceived as
an accusation of usurping power and would have caused at least
a diplomatic row, but the ruling party of Armenia remains silent
on this statement. Though, the RPA itself admits that there were
irregularities in the ballot, but "they did not affect the course
and the outcome of the election."
When an athlete is caught using performance-enhancing drugs and other
stimulants he or she gets banned from the race and is usually stripped
of all titles. The most recent example is the case of U.S. cycling
star Lance Armstrong. The RPA, in fact, has been using "doping" in the
form of state levers - schools, social service agencies and facilities,
municipal authorities, through which it has put considerable pressure
on voters. Besides, the RPA also wields significant influence on the
Central Election Commission, which is supposed to remain an independent
and impartial body.
The Armenian legislation contains no provisions that would allow
disqualifying a political party from the race if voting violations
are committed in its favor. Such provisions exist, however, in the
legislations of other countries, besides, in democratic countries
there is a so-called code of political honor, according to which
a political party itself declares its resignation if at least one
similar offense becomes publicly known.
But it is not the case in Armenia, where the political parties at
the helm of the state have always opted for reshaping laws to fit
their needs, and no code of honor has been formed within more than
two decades of formal democracy in Armenia.
The maverick presidential candidate, Andrias Ghukasyan, who was
on a month-long hunger strike throughout the election campaign,
demanded from the very beginning that the RPA, which nominated
President Sargsyan as a candidate in the race, be disqualified,
arguing that this party's participation by itself implied unfair
elections. Before calling for the disqualification of Sargsyan as an
RPA candidate, Ghukasyan first suggested boycotting the elections,
urging all candidates to withdraw from the race to leave Sargsyan
alone, shadowboxing, but to no avail - the elections were held,
and their fairness is again being called into question.
Despite the fact that thousands of people have been gathering in the
square with a genuine wish for the flawed system of power usurpation to
be broken up, Armenia still lacks mechanisms of appealing the election
results: even the proof of a considerable number of violations is
likely to be rejected by the Constitutional Court as "not enough
to influence the outcome of elections" on the basis of a simple
numerical count and with no integrity of the process being taken
into consideration.
In conditions like these, election protesters appear to have only a
limited number of options to choose from - either to put up with the
election results and start preparing for the next elections or make
a revolution.
Both options, however, are futile, as in the case with the former
there is no guarantee that the protest mood will not fade away in time
for the next general election (as it happened to the Ter-Petrosyan
opposition bloc that regrouped in the wake of the suppressed street
demonstrations for purposes of a long-term political struggle) and
the latter option will inevitably come up against strong-arm methods
of the state with all ensuing consequences.
Under current circumstances it is not excluded that a third option
will be offered - a broad-based coalition with the powers of a
constitutional assembly that would prepare constitutional amendments
primarily regarding liability for electoral violations that will
eventually break up the RPA's monopoly - a goal now being pursued by
many opposition and "alternative" political forces in Armenia that
feel mostly excluded from public governance and decision-making.
Such an option could allow Hovannisian to take his rightful place in
the country's establishment, lobby the proposal that he himself made
last year about the transition to a parliamentary form of government.
At the same time, it would allow President Sargsyan to "clean" his
own party, which has constantly been accused of becoming a refuge to
oligarchs, and to modernize it for the benefit of the nation.
VOTE 2013 | 22.02.13 | 14:00
Photolure
By NAIRA HAYRUMYAN
ArmeniaNow correspondent
Almost all presidential elections in the history of independent Armenia
were followed by protests, with the second-placed candidate disputing
the official outcome and claiming massive fraud in favor of the
government candidate. The 2013 election is no exception in this sense.
Heritage Party leader Raffi Hovannisian, who garnered nearly 37 percent
of the vote, insists that a considerable number of votes have been
stolen from him and that in fact he is the rightful winner and not
the incumbent president, Serzh Sargsyan, whose official result is
put above 58 percent.
Thousands of people showing up for post-election rallies in Yerevan
agree with Hovannisian, as many people did in 1996 when the single
opposition presidential candidate, Vazgen Manukyan, was officially
"defeated" by the then incumbent, Levon Ter-Petrosyan; in 2003 when
then opposition leader Stepan Demirchyan challenged president Robert
Kocharyan and finally in 2008 when Ter-Petrosyan, already as an
opposition leader, disputed Sargsyan's win of his first presidential
term. While in all cases street demonstrations would turn nasty at one
point, only the 2008 standoff turned deadly as 10 people were killed
in the March 1-2 clashes in central Yerevan when security personnel
had been brought in to suppress the demonstrations.
The reasons for the Armenian tradition of electoral fraud have
most succinctly been formulated by the U.S. Department of State,
whose spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, citing concerns of international
observers, earlier this week talked about "the lack of impartiality on
the part of [Armenian] public administration officials and the misuse
of administrative resources that resulted in a blurred distinction
between the activities of the state and those of the ruling party." In
fact, by highlighting this circumstance, Nuland accused the governing
Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) of using the levers of the state
to secure its continued hold of power.
In another country such a statement would have been perceived as
an accusation of usurping power and would have caused at least
a diplomatic row, but the ruling party of Armenia remains silent
on this statement. Though, the RPA itself admits that there were
irregularities in the ballot, but "they did not affect the course
and the outcome of the election."
When an athlete is caught using performance-enhancing drugs and other
stimulants he or she gets banned from the race and is usually stripped
of all titles. The most recent example is the case of U.S. cycling
star Lance Armstrong. The RPA, in fact, has been using "doping" in the
form of state levers - schools, social service agencies and facilities,
municipal authorities, through which it has put considerable pressure
on voters. Besides, the RPA also wields significant influence on the
Central Election Commission, which is supposed to remain an independent
and impartial body.
The Armenian legislation contains no provisions that would allow
disqualifying a political party from the race if voting violations
are committed in its favor. Such provisions exist, however, in the
legislations of other countries, besides, in democratic countries
there is a so-called code of political honor, according to which
a political party itself declares its resignation if at least one
similar offense becomes publicly known.
But it is not the case in Armenia, where the political parties at
the helm of the state have always opted for reshaping laws to fit
their needs, and no code of honor has been formed within more than
two decades of formal democracy in Armenia.
The maverick presidential candidate, Andrias Ghukasyan, who was
on a month-long hunger strike throughout the election campaign,
demanded from the very beginning that the RPA, which nominated
President Sargsyan as a candidate in the race, be disqualified,
arguing that this party's participation by itself implied unfair
elections. Before calling for the disqualification of Sargsyan as an
RPA candidate, Ghukasyan first suggested boycotting the elections,
urging all candidates to withdraw from the race to leave Sargsyan
alone, shadowboxing, but to no avail - the elections were held,
and their fairness is again being called into question.
Despite the fact that thousands of people have been gathering in the
square with a genuine wish for the flawed system of power usurpation to
be broken up, Armenia still lacks mechanisms of appealing the election
results: even the proof of a considerable number of violations is
likely to be rejected by the Constitutional Court as "not enough
to influence the outcome of elections" on the basis of a simple
numerical count and with no integrity of the process being taken
into consideration.
In conditions like these, election protesters appear to have only a
limited number of options to choose from - either to put up with the
election results and start preparing for the next elections or make
a revolution.
Both options, however, are futile, as in the case with the former
there is no guarantee that the protest mood will not fade away in time
for the next general election (as it happened to the Ter-Petrosyan
opposition bloc that regrouped in the wake of the suppressed street
demonstrations for purposes of a long-term political struggle) and
the latter option will inevitably come up against strong-arm methods
of the state with all ensuing consequences.
Under current circumstances it is not excluded that a third option
will be offered - a broad-based coalition with the powers of a
constitutional assembly that would prepare constitutional amendments
primarily regarding liability for electoral violations that will
eventually break up the RPA's monopoly - a goal now being pursued by
many opposition and "alternative" political forces in Armenia that
feel mostly excluded from public governance and decision-making.
Such an option could allow Hovannisian to take his rightful place in
the country's establishment, lobby the proposal that he himself made
last year about the transition to a parliamentary form of government.
At the same time, it would allow President Sargsyan to "clean" his
own party, which has constantly been accused of becoming a refuge to
oligarchs, and to modernize it for the benefit of the nation.