Not Quite a Color Revolution in Armenia

The Democratization Policy Council has an interesting analysis on the recent presidential election in Armenia and the events that followed it. The analysis is penned by a senior associate of organization and one of the founders of the PORA civic initiative in Ukraine. As with a recent article published by Transitions Online, the analysis says that alarms should now be ringing when it comes to democratization in the former Soviet space.

Senior Associate Iryna Chupryna has written the first in the series, Not Quite a Color Revolution in Armenia [PDF]. She looks at why protests against shortcomings in Armenia’s flawed February elections fizzled like those in Belarus in 2006 instead of turning into a revolution, like those in Ukraine in 2004. Chupryna argues that muted criticism from the European Union and United States following the government’s violent crackdown on protestors may signal a dangerous tolerance for democratic backsliding in the post-Soviet space.

However, it also says that the opposition is at fault as well as the government and examines the reasons for its failure to stage a “colored revolution.” In particular, as pointed out on this blog despite what the opposition itself claims, it did not manage to attract widespread support in society with rallies averaging around 20-30,000 in the post-election period. The democratic credentials of former president Levon Ter-Petrossian were also considered questionable, to say the least, by many Armenians.

The situation in Armenia allowed an opportunity for a change of government - being a semi-authoritarian” rather than a consolidated authoritarian regime, Armenia allowed breathing space for an opposition and civil society, and Ter-Petrosian, as a former president, had many connections within the power and security structures. A number of defections from the Sarkisian camp followed the elections, including such top officials as the deputy General Prosecutor. During the mass rallies, protesters used a rich arsenal of methods of non-violent resistance, which had been applied during other “color” revolutions: tents on the central square, ‘sit-in’ protests, hunger strikes, and filing a complaint with the Constitutional Court.

Yet several critical factors prevented Armenia from joining the gallery of hopeful democratic changes in the former Soviet states. The attempted revolution lacked an important trigger – namely, a large-scale election fraud exposed by domestic and international observers and further indicated by reliable exit polls. Had the OSCEODIHR observation mission made a more damning assessment in its preliminary statement, the protesters would have more easily generated international support. Recognition of the results by America, France, and other major Western powers contributed to protesters’ deflation. They never gained the wide international coverage that the Ukrainian orange revolutionaries did.

Another important factor behind the protests’ failure was the dubious quality of the opposition. It failed to put forward a single candidate, who could likely have made it to the second round. Second, the rule of Ter-Petrosian is remembered for economic disaster and wide-spread corruption, and citizens no doubt remember his own dubious re-election, when the army was deployed in the streets. Though he may justly condemn the current regime, his personal credibility is unlikely to convince millions that his return to office would herald change and prosperity. The number of protesters at most rallies was in the tens rather than hundreds of thousands, as they were in Ukraine in 2004 or Serbia in 2000, and they were not as determined. Finally, the protesters did not manage to strictly observe non-violent tactics; engaging in clashes with the police, with some reported to be armed, which is not surprising in such a conflict-riven region.

Nevertheless, despite the election being frequently described by independent observers as a “struggle between two evils,” the analysis ultimately concludes that the international community is also at fault for not paying closer attention towards the process of democratization in Armenia. Given that many heads of international organizations in Armenia actually rationalized and justified the outcome of the 2003 presidential election while not raising concerns with economic growth stimulated by an oligarchal system which they also personally benefited from, the Armenia Election Monitor 2008 has to agree.

In particular, international organizations appear only to be concerned with elections in the few months leading up to them. Of course, civil society also only seems interested in democracy when international money is made available for it to implement programs which they could have been doing if only for the sake of the country. Interestingly, concerns about such a focus on the period leading up to elections are become more amplified and it can only be hoped that a more holistic and long-term, non-partisan approach is followed in the future.

As the analysis says, failure to address the specific problems now clearly identified in the past few years would be a serious mistake.

Armenia lacked the essential components for another peaceful democratic change: the opposition did not enjoy sufficient popular credibility, and therefore mobilization was quite modest. Yet it still remains deplorable that while the world has paid close attention to the fallout from Kosovo’s independence and the Russian elections, the international community has failed to strongly condemn the coercive resolution of a post-election dispute in Armenia. This creates a dangerous precedent for dealing with similar developments in the future.

The international community must demand a public investigation into the post-election violence and arrests, calling for those responsible to be held to account. While the Council of Europe and human rights organizations expressed their deep concern about the violent crackdown and the state of emergency, the reaction of the USA and main European powers remained muted. It appears that they are not willing to counter another slide into authoritarianism in the post-Soviet space.

The full analysis can be downloaded or read online in PDF format here.

Photo: © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2007