Tweet
ARMENIA IN TRANSITION - FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY OR FACADE?
http://hetq.am/eng/news/23818/armenia-in-transition-%E2%80%93-functioning-democracy-or-facade?.html
16:24, February 25, 2013
A few thoughts on the presidential election in Armenia on February 18,
2013; A report to the Steering Committee of the Civil Society Forum.
The recent presidential election in Armenia exhibited many features
common to a post-communist state in transition to a democratic form
of government. The election begs the question if the transition to a
functioning democracy will be successful in Armenia or if democratic
institutions will become a pure facade. If the latter happens then
society will face the choice of either rebelling to replace its
rulers or acquiescing in rule by governments which lacks democratic
legitimacy.
The election saw a mixture of social activity which reflects the
democratic experience of the past two decades and pressure from
external actors who are promoting democratic values such as the
European Union or the United States. But it also showed the continuing
influence of behavior patterns formed in Soviet times which are still
present both in government and society at large and which threaten
the country’s democratic evolution.
A narrow field
The election campaign saw a field of eight candidates including
the present incumbent but lacked the participation of important
political parties such as Prosperous Armenia (PA), formerly allied
with the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), and the Armenian
National Congress (ANC), a coalition of opposition parties, both
of which failed to field a candidate. It remains unclear why PA,
a party associated with rich business people, chose not to run, but
objectively the decision strengthened the incumbent’s position
in the election. The ANC and the Armenian Revolutionary Party (ARF),
another opposition party, decided not to run, arguing that the election
would not be fair and that there was no point in participating. This in
effect left the field to Serz Sargsyan (RPA), the incumbent, and his
main challenger Raffi Hovannisian, the leader of the Heritage Party
(HP). Pre-election opinion polls showed these two politicians to be
the two main contestants.
Insipid Campaign
Both lead candidates held campaign meetings. These differed in style
with Serz Sargsyan choosing a more formal style of addressing the
electorate at meetings, while the Californian born Raffi Hovannisian
favored direct contacts with the voters, adding ‘the walk about
’ methods adopted by western politicians. There were almost no
campaign posters and few campaign leaflets in evidence and all the
candidates relied on media coverage to reach voters. Media monitoring
by the Yerevan Press Club, a CSF member, showed the coverage to be
fair and balanced. There were no debates between the main candidates.
Candidates fight the local government machine - the other contest
By all accounts, the opposition candidates found themselves fighting
not only against each other but against the country’s local
government machine which was mobilized to support the incumbent
president. This was a throwback to Soviet times when there was little
distinction between the Communist party and the State administration.
Then, the authorities worked at election times to persuade the
population to vote as an outward sign of loyalty. In this election
in Armenia the aim of the authorities working with the Republican
Party was to deliver votes to the incumbent through persuasion,
bribery and subtle forms of intimidation. Nine out of ten governors
in the provinces went on leave to campaign for the current president
in a public sign that the full force of their influence on the state
apparatus and state controlled institutions, like the education system,
would be brought to play to garner votes. Indeed the governors, as
well as city mayors and village heads were well aware that they would
be judged by the central administration on their ability to deliver
votes to the incumbent. This competition of the governors and other
senior officials between themselves, aware that their career prospects
depended on the results they are able to generate, was the other
electoral contest which took place alongside the presidential election.
Bribery - a well organized if discreet procedure
There were reports from local election monitors of regular planning
meetings held by officials at the local level. By all accounts these
would be headed by the provincial governor and attended by local
parliamentary deputies from the RPA as well as the senior police
representatives. The meetings assigned tasks and assessed progress
in building support for the president. The mechanism was simple.
Individuals with good local knowledge would be tasked with identifying
voters who would then be encouraged with bribes to support the
incumbent candidate. Meanwhile, heads of public entities such as
teachers would be asked to provide resources such as halls for
meetings as well as tell their employees to vote for the official
candidate (a great majority of school directors are members of the
RPA). People targeted as potential recipients of bribes, which ranged
in value between 10 and 20 euro per vote, were more often than not
from among the not so well off. Contact would be direct, bringing new
meaning to the phrase ‘door to door’ canvassing, which
in developed democracies describes candidates meeting with voters
on their doorsteps in an attempt to win support. A representative of
the RPA told visiting experts that their campaign consisted of making
statements, having their candidate hold election meetings with voters,
and going ‘door to door’ in what appears to have been a
cynical parody of the western model.
But funding was sometimes scarce
In Vanadzor, a major Armenian town in the northern province of Lori,
it was reported that bribes were offered to people living on pensions
but employees of state institutions were told to vote for the president
without a promise of financial gratification. This would indicate
that the official campaign in this province was short of funds. In
Gyumri, Armenia’s second largest city, funds for the bribes
had to be raised locally in contrast to the parliamentary campaign
in the summer of 2012 when funds for this purpose had been provided
from outside the province.
Why no evidence?
The question remains why, with almost ubiquitous accounts of bribery
of voters, is there no available hard evidence of this practice.
Indeed, in this election the state prosecutor’s office appealed
(in response to a suggestion from ODiHR after last year’s
parliamentary campaign) for people who had been offered bribes
to come forward. There was little response. The reason is
that people are afraid of reporting such incidents as they are
aware that these will not be investigated by the police while the
‘whistleblowers’ could suffer at the hands of officialdom
if they complain. Also, potential recipients of bribes are targeted
precisely because they are vulnerable to official pressure and thus
prefer to remain silent. In addition, given high poverty levels and
a fall in confidence in politicians, the recipient of such a bribe
recognizes that this is a concrete sign that politics does deliver
rewards, however modest. Voting in Soviet societies was nothing
other than a gesture of loyalty to the government. Now in Armenia,
the introduction of the offer of financial gratification in what
is becoming a ‘voters support scheme’ is an innovation
brought by the introduction of some market mechanisms into the country.
Yet results were a surprise
The announcement of preliminary election results by the Central
Electoral Commission showed a turnout of 60.04% with Serz Sargsyan
declared the winner with a 58.64% share of the vote and Raffi
Hovannisian in second place with 36.75%. The result was questioned
by Raffi Hovannisian. In rallies immediately following the election
he referred to the incumbent as the ‘acting president’
who had ‘lost the election’ because ‘the people had
lost their fear’. Whatever the truth of the allegations that
the ballot was fixed, the ‘official’ result of the main
challenger surprised many and pointed to a surge of support in what
was seen as a protest vote against the incumbent. This suggests that
popular support for the president is lower than was expected and the
willingness of the population to express their opposition is greater.
It weakens Serz Sargsyan’s position as he faces new challenges in
the post election period, especially in relations with the European
Union.
Free Trade Area Agreement?
Armenia is currently negotiating a Deep and Comprehensive Free
Trade Area Agreement (DCFTA) with the EU, and with four negotiating
sessions still planned it is hoped that the talks will be completed
by the Vilnius Eastern Partnership summit at the end of November
2013. The completion of these talks this year would be an undoubted
achievement for the EU and would show that the Eastern Partnership
programme is working.
The European Council meeting last month also mentioned Georgia
and Moldova as countries with whom such negotiations could also be
completed by November. Serzh Sargsyan did not mention relations with
the EU in his campaign speeches, but before the elections he had
said several times both in public and in private contacts with top
EU officials that he will start on the reforms and push ahead with
the DCFTA talks after the elections.
However, for a DCFTA to be signed, as the case of Ukraine shows, the
human rights situation in a given country has to be in line with EU
democratic standards. Hence it is worth noting the low key reaction
by Catherine Ashton, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign
Affairs and Security Policy and Stefan Fule, the Commissioner for
Enlargement, to the Armenian election results.
The EU officials welcomed progress in holding the election in line
with international standards but criticized cases of partiality
by civil servants, misuse of administrative resources, unclear
interpretation of financial provisions and cases of pressure on
voters. This statement leaves the door open to progress on the DCFTA
but does not give carte blanche to the government and puts a question
mark over the government’s democratic credentials.
More serious is the fact that the election, with its surge of support
for an opposition candidate, shows the underlying weakness of the
president’s political position. This is not a good basis from
which to start implementing the DCFTA which requires major changes
in the way the economy is regulated and will provoke resistance from
powerful interest groups in Armenian society.
Observers observed and criticized
The election was observed by many local as well as international
observers. Pride of place goes to the Office of Democratic Institutions
of Human Rights (ODiHR) of the OSCE, which has significant experience
in election monitoring and whose judgments on the conduct of elections
are widely respected.
ODiHR noted that fundamental freedoms of expression and assembly were
respected during the campaign and that media coverage was balanced.
However, it also mentioned cases of pressure on voters, the lack
of impartiality on the part of the public administration, and
the participation of civil servants in the campaign. The European
Parliament (EP) observers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe (PACE) concurred in these findings. The parliamentary
assembly of the OSCE, which also observed the election, found that
Armenia had ‘made a step forward’ in conducting this
election compared to previous contests but was also critical.
But these critical remarks were not enough to deflect local criticism
that international observers are much too well disposed to the host
governments. What makes the situation worse is that the reports were
used in Armenia by the official media, which quoted them selectively
to legitimize the result of the elections.
Also there is a growing feeling in the Eastern Partnership countries
that observers from the parliamentary assemblies are biased because
they are political allies of the parties which are taking part in the
elections. Thus, the European People’s Party (EPP) is allied to
Serzh Sargsyan’s RPA. Indeed, soon after the preliminary results
were published Wilfried Martens, the head of the EPP, wrote to the
president warmly congratulating him on his victory. Mr Martens, who is
a former Belgian prime minister, also congratulated Raffi Hovanisian
whose Heritage Party is linked to the EPP as well as the RPA.
The lack of trust in international observers and western politicians
came to the fore when a small demonstration disrupted the post
election press conference of ODiHR and its partners. Lena Nazaryan,
a young civil activist, read out a statement beginning with the words:
“Dear political tourists, we have had enough of your efforts to
legitimize these fraudulent elections”. Her words were greeted
enthusiastically by many of the local people in the room. This could
well be a sign of the times.
Krzysztof Bobiński
The author was in Armenia from February 16 to February 21 2013 to
report on the election on behalf of the election sub group of Working
Group 1 of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum.
Yerevan, February 21, 2013
http://hetq.am/eng/news/23818/armenia-in-transition-%E2%80%93-functioning-democracy-or-facade?.html
16:24, February 25, 2013
A few thoughts on the presidential election in Armenia on February 18,
2013; A report to the Steering Committee of the Civil Society Forum.
The recent presidential election in Armenia exhibited many features
common to a post-communist state in transition to a democratic form
of government. The election begs the question if the transition to a
functioning democracy will be successful in Armenia or if democratic
institutions will become a pure facade. If the latter happens then
society will face the choice of either rebelling to replace its
rulers or acquiescing in rule by governments which lacks democratic
legitimacy.
The election saw a mixture of social activity which reflects the
democratic experience of the past two decades and pressure from
external actors who are promoting democratic values such as the
European Union or the United States. But it also showed the continuing
influence of behavior patterns formed in Soviet times which are still
present both in government and society at large and which threaten
the country’s democratic evolution.
A narrow field
The election campaign saw a field of eight candidates including
the present incumbent but lacked the participation of important
political parties such as Prosperous Armenia (PA), formerly allied
with the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), and the Armenian
National Congress (ANC), a coalition of opposition parties, both
of which failed to field a candidate. It remains unclear why PA,
a party associated with rich business people, chose not to run, but
objectively the decision strengthened the incumbent’s position
in the election. The ANC and the Armenian Revolutionary Party (ARF),
another opposition party, decided not to run, arguing that the election
would not be fair and that there was no point in participating. This in
effect left the field to Serz Sargsyan (RPA), the incumbent, and his
main challenger Raffi Hovannisian, the leader of the Heritage Party
(HP). Pre-election opinion polls showed these two politicians to be
the two main contestants.
Insipid Campaign
Both lead candidates held campaign meetings. These differed in style
with Serz Sargsyan choosing a more formal style of addressing the
electorate at meetings, while the Californian born Raffi Hovannisian
favored direct contacts with the voters, adding ‘the walk about
’ methods adopted by western politicians. There were almost no
campaign posters and few campaign leaflets in evidence and all the
candidates relied on media coverage to reach voters. Media monitoring
by the Yerevan Press Club, a CSF member, showed the coverage to be
fair and balanced. There were no debates between the main candidates.
Candidates fight the local government machine - the other contest
By all accounts, the opposition candidates found themselves fighting
not only against each other but against the country’s local
government machine which was mobilized to support the incumbent
president. This was a throwback to Soviet times when there was little
distinction between the Communist party and the State administration.
Then, the authorities worked at election times to persuade the
population to vote as an outward sign of loyalty. In this election
in Armenia the aim of the authorities working with the Republican
Party was to deliver votes to the incumbent through persuasion,
bribery and subtle forms of intimidation. Nine out of ten governors
in the provinces went on leave to campaign for the current president
in a public sign that the full force of their influence on the state
apparatus and state controlled institutions, like the education system,
would be brought to play to garner votes. Indeed the governors, as
well as city mayors and village heads were well aware that they would
be judged by the central administration on their ability to deliver
votes to the incumbent. This competition of the governors and other
senior officials between themselves, aware that their career prospects
depended on the results they are able to generate, was the other
electoral contest which took place alongside the presidential election.
Bribery - a well organized if discreet procedure
There were reports from local election monitors of regular planning
meetings held by officials at the local level. By all accounts these
would be headed by the provincial governor and attended by local
parliamentary deputies from the RPA as well as the senior police
representatives. The meetings assigned tasks and assessed progress
in building support for the president. The mechanism was simple.
Individuals with good local knowledge would be tasked with identifying
voters who would then be encouraged with bribes to support the
incumbent candidate. Meanwhile, heads of public entities such as
teachers would be asked to provide resources such as halls for
meetings as well as tell their employees to vote for the official
candidate (a great majority of school directors are members of the
RPA). People targeted as potential recipients of bribes, which ranged
in value between 10 and 20 euro per vote, were more often than not
from among the not so well off. Contact would be direct, bringing new
meaning to the phrase ‘door to door’ canvassing, which
in developed democracies describes candidates meeting with voters
on their doorsteps in an attempt to win support. A representative of
the RPA told visiting experts that their campaign consisted of making
statements, having their candidate hold election meetings with voters,
and going ‘door to door’ in what appears to have been a
cynical parody of the western model.
But funding was sometimes scarce
In Vanadzor, a major Armenian town in the northern province of Lori,
it was reported that bribes were offered to people living on pensions
but employees of state institutions were told to vote for the president
without a promise of financial gratification. This would indicate
that the official campaign in this province was short of funds. In
Gyumri, Armenia’s second largest city, funds for the bribes
had to be raised locally in contrast to the parliamentary campaign
in the summer of 2012 when funds for this purpose had been provided
from outside the province.
Why no evidence?
The question remains why, with almost ubiquitous accounts of bribery
of voters, is there no available hard evidence of this practice.
Indeed, in this election the state prosecutor’s office appealed
(in response to a suggestion from ODiHR after last year’s
parliamentary campaign) for people who had been offered bribes
to come forward. There was little response. The reason is
that people are afraid of reporting such incidents as they are
aware that these will not be investigated by the police while the
‘whistleblowers’ could suffer at the hands of officialdom
if they complain. Also, potential recipients of bribes are targeted
precisely because they are vulnerable to official pressure and thus
prefer to remain silent. In addition, given high poverty levels and
a fall in confidence in politicians, the recipient of such a bribe
recognizes that this is a concrete sign that politics does deliver
rewards, however modest. Voting in Soviet societies was nothing
other than a gesture of loyalty to the government. Now in Armenia,
the introduction of the offer of financial gratification in what
is becoming a ‘voters support scheme’ is an innovation
brought by the introduction of some market mechanisms into the country.
Yet results were a surprise
The announcement of preliminary election results by the Central
Electoral Commission showed a turnout of 60.04% with Serz Sargsyan
declared the winner with a 58.64% share of the vote and Raffi
Hovannisian in second place with 36.75%. The result was questioned
by Raffi Hovannisian. In rallies immediately following the election
he referred to the incumbent as the ‘acting president’
who had ‘lost the election’ because ‘the people had
lost their fear’. Whatever the truth of the allegations that
the ballot was fixed, the ‘official’ result of the main
challenger surprised many and pointed to a surge of support in what
was seen as a protest vote against the incumbent. This suggests that
popular support for the president is lower than was expected and the
willingness of the population to express their opposition is greater.
It weakens Serz Sargsyan’s position as he faces new challenges in
the post election period, especially in relations with the European
Union.
Free Trade Area Agreement?
Armenia is currently negotiating a Deep and Comprehensive Free
Trade Area Agreement (DCFTA) with the EU, and with four negotiating
sessions still planned it is hoped that the talks will be completed
by the Vilnius Eastern Partnership summit at the end of November
2013. The completion of these talks this year would be an undoubted
achievement for the EU and would show that the Eastern Partnership
programme is working.
The European Council meeting last month also mentioned Georgia
and Moldova as countries with whom such negotiations could also be
completed by November. Serzh Sargsyan did not mention relations with
the EU in his campaign speeches, but before the elections he had
said several times both in public and in private contacts with top
EU officials that he will start on the reforms and push ahead with
the DCFTA talks after the elections.
However, for a DCFTA to be signed, as the case of Ukraine shows, the
human rights situation in a given country has to be in line with EU
democratic standards. Hence it is worth noting the low key reaction
by Catherine Ashton, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign
Affairs and Security Policy and Stefan Fule, the Commissioner for
Enlargement, to the Armenian election results.
The EU officials welcomed progress in holding the election in line
with international standards but criticized cases of partiality
by civil servants, misuse of administrative resources, unclear
interpretation of financial provisions and cases of pressure on
voters. This statement leaves the door open to progress on the DCFTA
but does not give carte blanche to the government and puts a question
mark over the government’s democratic credentials.
More serious is the fact that the election, with its surge of support
for an opposition candidate, shows the underlying weakness of the
president’s political position. This is not a good basis from
which to start implementing the DCFTA which requires major changes
in the way the economy is regulated and will provoke resistance from
powerful interest groups in Armenian society.
Observers observed and criticized
The election was observed by many local as well as international
observers. Pride of place goes to the Office of Democratic Institutions
of Human Rights (ODiHR) of the OSCE, which has significant experience
in election monitoring and whose judgments on the conduct of elections
are widely respected.
ODiHR noted that fundamental freedoms of expression and assembly were
respected during the campaign and that media coverage was balanced.
However, it also mentioned cases of pressure on voters, the lack
of impartiality on the part of the public administration, and
the participation of civil servants in the campaign. The European
Parliament (EP) observers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe (PACE) concurred in these findings. The parliamentary
assembly of the OSCE, which also observed the election, found that
Armenia had ‘made a step forward’ in conducting this
election compared to previous contests but was also critical.
But these critical remarks were not enough to deflect local criticism
that international observers are much too well disposed to the host
governments. What makes the situation worse is that the reports were
used in Armenia by the official media, which quoted them selectively
to legitimize the result of the elections.
Also there is a growing feeling in the Eastern Partnership countries
that observers from the parliamentary assemblies are biased because
they are political allies of the parties which are taking part in the
elections. Thus, the European People’s Party (EPP) is allied to
Serzh Sargsyan’s RPA. Indeed, soon after the preliminary results
were published Wilfried Martens, the head of the EPP, wrote to the
president warmly congratulating him on his victory. Mr Martens, who is
a former Belgian prime minister, also congratulated Raffi Hovanisian
whose Heritage Party is linked to the EPP as well as the RPA.
The lack of trust in international observers and western politicians
came to the fore when a small demonstration disrupted the post
election press conference of ODiHR and its partners. Lena Nazaryan,
a young civil activist, read out a statement beginning with the words:
“Dear political tourists, we have had enough of your efforts to
legitimize these fraudulent elections”. Her words were greeted
enthusiastically by many of the local people in the room. This could
well be a sign of the times.
Krzysztof Bobiński
The author was in Armenia from February 16 to February 21 2013 to
report on the election on behalf of the election sub group of Working
Group 1 of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum.
Yerevan, February 21, 2013