Tweet
ON THE ELECTORAL PROCESS AND DEMOCRACY
By Christian Garbis
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/05/01/on-the-electoral-process-and-democracy/
May 1, 2013
The Yerevan municipal elections are right around the corner, scheduled
for May 5. Many political parties that are in opposition to the
government or still on the fence are putting their faith in these
elections, hoping that democracy will work in their favor this time
around and system-wide reform will begin in Yerevan. Onlookers from
thousands of miles away will be eager to see the election results
and make their judgments about political successes and failures
accordingly. And that's what is so daunting.
When studying the comments section of several articles written about
Armenian politics in the Weekly, it's clear that readers fall into
two distinct camps-those who side with the opposition and thus the
importance of the role of democracy in the development of society, and
those who are staunchly, even suspiciously, loyal to the government and
choose to ignore or downplay legitimate criticisms. The latter group
seems to believe that the democratic system is equally transparent as
those of nations in the West, for instance the United States. While in
America the presidential vote is determined by the number of electoral
votes won, the popular vote is largely symbolic.
In many still-budding democracies, like Armenia, it is the popular
vote that counts.
Despite monitoring efforts by European structures like the OSCE and
the pretense of transparency, it has been very easy-not to mention
essential-to falsify the vote in order to retain power in nearly
every election. Not only are games played at the polling stations
(forging signatures on voter lists, ballot stuffing, bribing, carousel
voting, harassment), but numbers are undoubtedly being conjured behind
closed doors at the Central Election Commission (CEC). Naturally,
this cannot be proven for certain since the CEC ultimately reports
to the president, just as all state bodies do.
In other words, the conclusion that the candidate or party that
acquires the most votes is the real winner is a naive sentiment for
the simple fact that democracy and the rule of law are not allowed to
function properly so long as the president of Armenia does not value
that system of governance. And I don't only mean Serge Sarkisian; -his
two predecessors also behaved essentially as dictators. The president
has complete control over all governmental agencies and institutions,
and ultimately has the final say as to how something will play out. If
governmental corruption, for instance, is to be stamped out, he must
have the will to do it-and not only the prime minister, who clearly
doesn't or else is powerless to do so. The judiciary likewise reports
to the president; it can act independently in low-profile cases where
private interests are not at stake. When the president wishes for a
ruling to be made one way or another, the judge holding the verdict
is obliged to carry out his wishes, or be dismissed.
The CEC is no exception to the rule. The head of the commission also
caters to the whims, or rather the shrewd planning, of the president.
In other words, the "official results" of the elections cannot be
taken at face value as being legitimate and a just expression of
will by the people. The doctrine of legitimacy is prescribed by the
president of Armenia alone.
These authorities will do anything to retain power. The Yerevan
municipality, which is controlled by the ruling Republican Party
of Armenia, has been very busy with various community renovation
and landscaping projects, laying down fresh asphalt on streets and
courtyard driveways, replacing curbstones, and repairing sidewalks.
Although it is their responsibility to maintain the city's streets,
they wait until the last minute before election day to accomplish
the work, thereby demonstrating a semblance of attentiveness while
earning votes. On election day, it's safe to assume that the usual
methods of vote buying and intimidation will be deployed. After all,
it's a normal practice.
Sunday's vote will be falsified again simply because the authorities
can get away with it, as was made quite obvious in February's
presidential elections, while managing to gain praise from Russia,
Europe and the United States in the aftermath.
And when communities in the diaspora continue to ignore violations
of democratic values by blindly embracing the outcome of the vote,
despite any blatant flaws that are revealed, the Armenian citizenry
is let down knowing that its compatriots based abroad are unsupportive
of its plight.
Until the Armenian nation fully embraces democracy, the same free and
fair elections that Western nations covet as the purest demonstration
of freedom cannot be held. The determination is necessary, along with
the much-needed collective consensus on the vote from the Armenian
Diaspora. This time around, it is vital for Armenian communities
worldwide, which have expressed their concern and support for
Armenia's freedom, to meticulously track violations that will be
reported by the Armenian press throughout the day (notable news
sources with live updates include Hetq Online, A1+, and Civilnet)
before rushing to judgment on the outcome of the vote. Two hundred
observers from the diaspora are rumored to be monitoring the municipal
elections. Their crucial findings will need to be considered quite
carefully in determining whether democracy in Armenia can indeed
flourish, as it should.
By Christian Garbis
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/05/01/on-the-electoral-process-and-democracy/
May 1, 2013
The Yerevan municipal elections are right around the corner, scheduled
for May 5. Many political parties that are in opposition to the
government or still on the fence are putting their faith in these
elections, hoping that democracy will work in their favor this time
around and system-wide reform will begin in Yerevan. Onlookers from
thousands of miles away will be eager to see the election results
and make their judgments about political successes and failures
accordingly. And that's what is so daunting.
When studying the comments section of several articles written about
Armenian politics in the Weekly, it's clear that readers fall into
two distinct camps-those who side with the opposition and thus the
importance of the role of democracy in the development of society, and
those who are staunchly, even suspiciously, loyal to the government and
choose to ignore or downplay legitimate criticisms. The latter group
seems to believe that the democratic system is equally transparent as
those of nations in the West, for instance the United States. While in
America the presidential vote is determined by the number of electoral
votes won, the popular vote is largely symbolic.
In many still-budding democracies, like Armenia, it is the popular
vote that counts.
Despite monitoring efforts by European structures like the OSCE and
the pretense of transparency, it has been very easy-not to mention
essential-to falsify the vote in order to retain power in nearly
every election. Not only are games played at the polling stations
(forging signatures on voter lists, ballot stuffing, bribing, carousel
voting, harassment), but numbers are undoubtedly being conjured behind
closed doors at the Central Election Commission (CEC). Naturally,
this cannot be proven for certain since the CEC ultimately reports
to the president, just as all state bodies do.
In other words, the conclusion that the candidate or party that
acquires the most votes is the real winner is a naive sentiment for
the simple fact that democracy and the rule of law are not allowed to
function properly so long as the president of Armenia does not value
that system of governance. And I don't only mean Serge Sarkisian; -his
two predecessors also behaved essentially as dictators. The president
has complete control over all governmental agencies and institutions,
and ultimately has the final say as to how something will play out. If
governmental corruption, for instance, is to be stamped out, he must
have the will to do it-and not only the prime minister, who clearly
doesn't or else is powerless to do so. The judiciary likewise reports
to the president; it can act independently in low-profile cases where
private interests are not at stake. When the president wishes for a
ruling to be made one way or another, the judge holding the verdict
is obliged to carry out his wishes, or be dismissed.
The CEC is no exception to the rule. The head of the commission also
caters to the whims, or rather the shrewd planning, of the president.
In other words, the "official results" of the elections cannot be
taken at face value as being legitimate and a just expression of
will by the people. The doctrine of legitimacy is prescribed by the
president of Armenia alone.
These authorities will do anything to retain power. The Yerevan
municipality, which is controlled by the ruling Republican Party
of Armenia, has been very busy with various community renovation
and landscaping projects, laying down fresh asphalt on streets and
courtyard driveways, replacing curbstones, and repairing sidewalks.
Although it is their responsibility to maintain the city's streets,
they wait until the last minute before election day to accomplish
the work, thereby demonstrating a semblance of attentiveness while
earning votes. On election day, it's safe to assume that the usual
methods of vote buying and intimidation will be deployed. After all,
it's a normal practice.
Sunday's vote will be falsified again simply because the authorities
can get away with it, as was made quite obvious in February's
presidential elections, while managing to gain praise from Russia,
Europe and the United States in the aftermath.
And when communities in the diaspora continue to ignore violations
of democratic values by blindly embracing the outcome of the vote,
despite any blatant flaws that are revealed, the Armenian citizenry
is let down knowing that its compatriots based abroad are unsupportive
of its plight.
Until the Armenian nation fully embraces democracy, the same free and
fair elections that Western nations covet as the purest demonstration
of freedom cannot be held. The determination is necessary, along with
the much-needed collective consensus on the vote from the Armenian
Diaspora. This time around, it is vital for Armenian communities
worldwide, which have expressed their concern and support for
Armenia's freedom, to meticulously track violations that will be
reported by the Armenian press throughout the day (notable news
sources with live updates include Hetq Online, A1+, and Civilnet)
before rushing to judgment on the outcome of the vote. Two hundred
observers from the diaspora are rumored to be monitoring the municipal
elections. Their crucial findings will need to be considered quite
carefully in determining whether democracy in Armenia can indeed
flourish, as it should.