However, it has to be said that the authorities made two big mistakes which were probably responsible for the inevitable confrontation on the streets now rather than later. Firstly, they should not have allowed the daily demonstrations at Liberty Square which were unsanctioned and so illegal.

However, they did, but rather than let everything run their course, their second mistake was dispersing it on Saturday morning. This led to the regrouping of protesters near the French Embassy who barricaded the area off and started to prepare for a fight.

Incidentally, I’m told by foreign journalists who were in town that the decision to disperse the Liberty Square demo was a unilateral one by the head of Kocharian’s security. The two journalists said that it was not properly coordinated or agreed up with other officials and security chiefs. It was a huge mistake and a knee jerk or panicked reaction by some in authority.

In that sense, then, I still think both sides are to blame. Ter-Petrossian needed the demonstrations to destabilize the situation as well as to put pressure on the Constitutional Court to rule in his favor. However, it was the dispersal of the Liberty Square protesters which brought things to a head and set the scene for the violent confrontation at the weekend.

Of course, that doesn’t justify ripping up streets and metal bars from construction sites by the opposition or burning vehicles, rioting and looting. It also doesn’t justify the use of firearms by the authorities even if it does turn out that they were used just to shoot into the air.

As the foreign journalists pointed out to me, bullets — even tracers — ricochet or come down. However, they also pointed out another failing of the authorities which I also understood when the state of emergency was declared.

That is, the police are not equipped or trained well enough in crowd control, especially in the situation where rioting occurs. Barricaded in by buses, the only solution was to call in the army to push through. However, that is a failing.

Probably, they said, and as was the case in Georgia, there is now the urgent need for the proper training and equipment of police units to deal with civil unrest on the streets. It’s just a pity the authorities never understood that until it was too late.

There are not easy solutions to complex problems, but all this aggressive talking about “democratic revolution” and being allowed to ignore basic rules … where does it lead to?

There is a whole science about revolutions in post-communist countries, which, incidentally, shows as well that the LTP’s one would have met the requisites for success more timely in May.
Worthy to be read and thought… http://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/gratis/fairbanks-18-1.pdf

In order to beat all the other candidates to it, he held his press conference marking the start of the official pre-election campaign in the week before the period actually started, for example.

Moreover, he declared then that he had already “won” the election. The same was true on the eve of the vote itself and as you remember, he had already timetabled his “victory” meeting for the day after the vote even before people went to the polls.

I think he is just unable to accept the idea of defeat, just as he didn’t in 1996, and this cast serious doubts about his perception of democracy, in my opinion. However, he uses such language almost as threats and I think this is part of the reason why we’re in the situation we’re in now.

1. […] and for the prestige of the Constitutional Court.

It sounds like blackmail.

2. I cannot imagine how any verdict arrived at by the Constitutional Court in these conditions will be accepted by me, the plaintiff, the people and the international community.

Illegal! In any country that has a Constitutional Court, its judgement is considered to be the final. Now, if everybody can start to decide on his/her own to accept or not a verdict, rising above even the maximum judicial body of the state, put a deadly stone on the Rule of the Law.

When talking to judges, usually speeches end like “Therefore I trustfully submit my instance to Your judgment, in the full and deep confidence of Your etc etc…” , and not with ultimatum of the conditions that will make the verdict acceptable. I understand that the situation is quite extreme, but I don’t think such a statement is proper. The more I read it, the more I dislike it. Why do you appeal to the Court if you have already decided!?

“Therefore, under the circumstances, any verdict of the Constitutional Court, besides recognizing the elections as null and void, will cause a shortage of legitimacy, which is dangerous for the future of the country, and for the prestige of the Constitutional Court.”