Elections in Armenia: Free and Fair?
Connected to the coming presidential election is the recent parliamentary election in Armenia. Indeed, the May vote was as much about next year’s presidential election which will see Kocharian pass on power presumably to a hand-picked successor than who will sit in the Armenian National Assembly. Some would argue that in actual fact, it was only about that which is why journalists, analysts and international organizations continue to examine the conduct of the parliamentary election and not least as it relates to improvements that will need to be made by early next year.
Transitions Online (TOL) is the latest publication to look at the parliamentary election, and interestingly enough, focuses on Raffi Hovannisian, the US-born first Foreign Minister of the Republic of Armenia who has made no secret of his intention to run for president in 2008.
Political parties allied to President Robert Kocharian won a commanding majority in parliamentary elections this spring, an outcome upheld by the nation’s highest court. But a leading opposition figure continues to argue that the election process was unfair.
Kocharian’s ruling Republican Party and its allies have been accused of vote-buying and coercion, among other violations, adding to the former Soviet republic’s years of electoral woes. Kocharian gave a positive assessment of the elections – an unsurprising response to a process that proved fruitful for the president – and international observers gave cautious praise for improvements over previous elections.
Raffi Hovhannisian, the U.S.-born former foreign secretary of Armenia and head of the opposition Heritage (Zharangutyun) party, thinks otherwise.
“No European country, regardless of how its representatives might assess the May 12 elections, would have allowed such conduct of parliamentary elections in their own countries,” he said.
Heritage joined with other opposition forces in alleging that the May election was marred by problems and irregularities, but such charges were dismissed by the Constitutional Court. “The elections did not meet international standards, EU benchmarks, and even Armenian election requirements, but most importantly they did not satisfy Armenia’s population at large,“ Hovhannisian told Transitions Online.
True enough, although the international community was not expecting the election to meet the much higher standards existing in Western Europe or even in Eastern Europe and the Baltic Republics. In fact, rightly or wrongly, it appears as though all they wanted was some kind of improvement over past elections that could contribute to Armenia’s proclaimed course towards democratization and global integration without disrupting the ongoing Karabakh peace process. I don’t think anyone expected the vote to be clean or up to Western standards although that’s not to say it couldn’t have been a lot better has there been the political will.
In their initial reports after the May election, foreign observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and its Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM), and the U.S. State Department played up the positive. They pointed to modest but noteworthy progress, lauding the vote as a step in the country’s democratic development. Party programs and campaigns, the observers noted, proved more sophisticated and transparent than ever.
Armenian authorities did show greater willingness to conduct clean elections than they have since Armenia gained independence in 1991. They enhanced transparency of some election procedures, provided both training for election officials and voter education, and unveiled a new centralized computer-based voter registry. Many candidates campaigned dynamically and visibly –- with vital media coverage –- and women made gains, winning 12 seats, up from seven.
In a joint statement the day after elections, the IEOM and OSCE-ODIHR “congratulated the Armenian people on showing the will to hold democratic elections” and for “making a further step towards European democratic values.”
Again, true enough.
Voting was calm and well organized compared to the two previous parliamentary and one presidential election I’ve observed here in the past eight years, and you just can’t compare the (relatively) limited number of cases of ballot box stuffing and voter intimidation in comparison to what has been before. However, with the electorate now pretty much cynical with regards to elections in Armenia, and with parliamentary elections considered less important than presidential ones anyway, a more “polite” way was chosen to influence the outcome of the vote — the increased use of bribery in a country where it was pretty common anyway.
“Existing regulations to address important areas of the electoral process, such as early campaigning and issues of possible vote-buying, were not implemented,” an IEOM statement said. “The intertwining at all levels of political and business interests was of concern, especially in view of relatively weak provisions and enforcement regarding transparency disclosure of campaign finances.”
[…]
IEOM observers assessed vote-counting in 17 percent of polling stations as “bad” or “very bad.” They attributed this to numerous instances in which a voter’s ballot choice was either not declared or shown to local authorities. The IEOM also suggested that almost 8 percent of polling stations made significant procedural errors or omissions.
Moreover, calls to an election hotline alleged incidents of bribery – buying votes for bags of potatoes or crisp 5,000 dram notes (the equivalent of 10 euros) – and people voting twice. There were also reported instances of entire villages of voters arriving in buses and being told to vote for a particular person.
Still, as I’ve said on many occasions since the 12 May parliamentary election, whatever the outcome and however it was achieved, the traditional and radical opposition failed to find support among most Armenians, but ironically set the scene for newer and more sophisticated parties such as Hovannisian’s Heritage and the Orinats Yerkir party of Artur Baghdasarian to enter parliament instead. Many people, including some government supporters, welcome such a development in the hope that the country can finally get the opposition it deserves — another crucial ingredient for democratization in countries such as Armenia.
Armenia’s opposition parties have traditionally been small and largely ineffective. But Hovhannisian vows Heritage will work with the Country of Law deputies and independent deputies to promote “a new political culture of cooperation.“
“We will work to continuously remind our colleagues that under the new constitutional amendments, Parliament has a very pivotal role in the actual implementation of the principle of checks and balances,“ he said. “We will work to persuade them that every bill must be scrutinized and analyzed carefully; that we must continuously work towards increasing the rule of law, the dignity and standing of the Armenian Parliament; work towards creating a normal political process and certain political principles and priorities that define the government and the oppositional coalition and the political culture of cooperation between them.“
Tied closely with these plans is Hovhannisian’s goal of ensuring that electoral conditions improve drastically in the 2008 presidential race.
“That is a challenge for our society, our nation, the opposition, and the country at large,“ he said. “We must draw the lessons and make the proper judgments so that the parliamentary elections do not condition the upcoming presidential elections in 2008. A lot depends on what happens this year – as to whether we will be able to surmount the parochial, the short-sighted, and the small thinking in each of us and to create a new consolidation of ideas and forces between the civil society and the government.“
Of course, the article ends on a more negative note.
Out of 131 seats in the Armenian National Assembly, Orinats Yerkir has only 8 while Heritage has 7. Still, we can only hope that the shortcomings of the parliamentary election are addressed in time for the 2008 vote, and that this form of managed democracy which appears to be supported by the West quickens pace in terms of its implementation. Incidentally, regarding Hovannisian, I’m not convinced that the CEC, police or any court is going to find him meeting the 10-year-eligibility requirement for running next year because he’s potentially a real threat to all the possible pro-government candidates, but let’s see.
The full article is here.
Raffi Hovannisian, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2005
- Published:
- 07.24.07 / 3am by Onnik
- Category:
- 2007 Parliamentary Election, Armenia, Armenia Presidential Election 2008, Candidates, Democracy, Parties
7 Comments
Jump to comment form | comments rss [?] | trackback uri [?]