TER-PETROSYAN’S ELECTION OFFICE DECLINES TO COMMENT

Rumors came on February 11 that the Armenian presidential candidate Levon Ter-Petrosyan has left for Moscow. Our source in Moscow confirmed this information. For official information, Lragir.am has turned to Arman Musinyan, the spokesman for the presidential candidate Levon Ter-Petrosyan, who said in answer to our question if it is true that Levon Ter-Petrosyan has left for Moscow he declines to comment.

http://www.lragir.am

[D]espite its declared foreign policy strategy of “complementarity,” the Kocharyan-Sargsyan government, headed by veterans of the Karabakh war, depends on Russian aid and diplomatic support to maintain the cease-fire line. Under their watch, much of Armenia’s key infrastructure and enterprises have been bought by Kremlin-controlled firms. The country hosts more than 5,000 Russian troops, with additional forces and equipment transferred to Armenia when bases in Georgia were closed last year. Russian officials have spoken of allowing Sargsyan the presidency as a gift in exchange for further control of Armenian infrastructure.

Parallel to the electioneering and talk of war, however, Armenia is experiencing a slow but steady move toward better governance, distancing itself from the Russian model. The great debate of this election cycle, spurred on by public discontent and Western nongovernmental organizations, was about equal access to the media by presidential candidates. The contentious election is happening only because Kocharyan chose to honor the constitution and step down after two terms, which was not a foregone conclusion. And several polls have shown the increased popularity of Western institutions such as the EU and NATO as well as less tolerance for corruption and “politics as usual.”

[…]

But as political analyst Richard Giragosyan says, Armenia’s road to Western-style representative government — unlike Georgia’s — is “an evolution, not a revolution.” At least through U.S. and European eyes, an election victory for Ter-Petrosyan would seem a positive evolutionary step. While his presidency would certainly bring Armenia a “back-to-the-future” moment and while Baghdasaryan would likely be more of a reformer, success by a candidate not ordained by the ruling party would lend legitimacy to Armenia’s democratic development. And the progress he might bring to Karabakh talks is seen in the United States and Europe as key to the country’s potential Western course — even as it quietly courts NATO and works within the European Neighborhood Policy.

While political discontent and interest in the West is rising among ordinary Armenians, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and a comfortably established leadership make it unlikely that Yerevan’s Republic Square will be the next sight of a color revolution. But next week’s truly contested election between Sargsyan and Ter-Petrosyan holds potential for continued change — perhaps in a Western direction. Geopolitical circumstances mean that Armenians will have to move in that direction on their own. But self-motivation and evolution may very well be the ingredients for sustainable good governance and Western integration.

Anyway, the plot thickens.