The Armenian National Assembly [Parliament] finally adopted a law against domestic violence on 8 December 2017. Tough debates preceded the adoption of the law during the whole autumn. The regulations were approved with 72 votes against 12 and six MPs refrained from participating in the vote.
It would seem that the adoption of such a law should not have been a major problem, but the activists and organisations that said that this law was directed against traditional Armenian families stood against it. They also said that the West was forcing Armenia to adopt the law.
As regards women's organisations and activists, in general, they supported the law, although they pointed to its drawbacks. However, the voices of opponents proved to be louder. The people, who claimed to hold the position of defending the traditional Armenian family intimidated society by saying that this law was against Armenian families. Some of them argued that there was no domestic violence in Armenia at all or its rate was simply exaggerated.
Citizens often referred to the arguments like "beating your wife is a sign of love" or spoke about "an ordinary method of parenting you child is to smack him up a couple of times". The process did not end without holding victims responsible. Many said that women themselves were guilty of violence in their own families.
Initially, similar statements were mostly made by marginal groups like Karabakh Movement veteran Khachik Stamboltsyan, who has turned into a Christian fundamentalism over years. As time passed, some members of the ruling [Armenian Republican] Party joined him, including quite prominent faces, for example, Armenian parliament Deputy Chairman Eduard Sharmazanov and former Prime Minister Khosrov Harutyunyan.
The voices of those, who criticised the law, got lost against this background. They spoke about concrete drawbacks in the draft law and warned about the possible misuse of some clauses of the law by investigative agencies.
Eventually, the draft law was adopted with significant changes. The title of the law was also changed from "On halting domestic violence and rendering assistance to victims of domestic violence" to "On halting domestic violence, protecting victims of domestic violence, and restoring harmony in the family".
In addition, the term "traditional Armenian family" appeared in the text of the law. In the opinion of some Armenian activists, in particular, members of the Stop Violence against Women coalition, new supplements to the text of the law make regulations inefficient and much weaker.
It is not only the title that is a problem. The new terms that emerged in the text – "harmony in the family" or "traditional Armenian family" – do not have any legal content.
The introduction of such wording can be viewed as a symbolic concession to the opponents of the law.
Other more serious changes were also made to the law. For example, it does not reflect violence in situations, where a couple is separated.
Conservatism and geopolitics: Who launched a campaign against the law and why?
Why did the adoption of the law directed against an unambiguously negative phenomenon become controversial? Numerous countries of the world, at any rate, most European countries, have adopted such laws.
Over the past few years, Armenian society has been shocked by high-profile crimes like murders of women or violence against them on the part of husbands or relatives.
According to Open Democracy, 602 cases of domestic violence were registered in Armenia in October 2017. The hotline of Armenian nongovernmental organisations received more than 5,000 calls with requests for help in 2017.
More than 50 women were killed in Armenia in 2010-2017 "for jealousy reasons". In addition, courts imposed light punishment on murderers in many cases.
The point is that the problem was regulated by the Criminal Code before the law was adopted. Therefore, the victim of violence or a witness had a choice to report to the police on the crime or keep silent.
According to activists of women's organisations, it was possible to avert many such cases over the past years, had the domestic violence law existed.
In society that holds patriarchal views on the family, it is often regarded as shameful to report on your husband, even if he beat you.
In spite of this, Armenia has made progress. Thanks to nongovernmental organisations and activists, the problem of domestic violence that everyone used to keep silent on is now openly discussed.
Many representatives of the Armenian diaspora also supported the law. However, the position of European structures was decisive in the adoption of the law. Of course, contrary to the opinion of conspiracy theorists, European officials do not have the aim of ruining the traditional Armenian family and the Armenian national identity. However, the fact that the adoption of the law coincided in time with the settlement of relations with the EU implied that its fate would be linked the Brussels-Yerevan-Moscow triangle. Expectations emerged that a framework agreement would be signed with the EU and it was clear that Russia was not going to be particularly enthusiastic over it.
It is here we are to search for the reasons why the adoption of this law caused such a stir. It is difficult to deny that Armenian society is patriarchal. Surveys carried out lately have shown that Armenian society is one of the most conservative among the East European and post-Soviet countries: Homosexuality is regarded as immoral by 98 per cent, the use of drugs by 97 per cent, prostitution by 96 per cent, extramarital sex by 78, and so forth.
However, it is clear that the struggle against domestic violence is not a controversial issue and, if desired, the law could have been adopted without raising a particular stir.
Even the Armenian Apostolic Church that cannot be described very liberal held quite a balanced position.
One of its top hierarchs, Bishop Mikayel Ajapahyan, supported the law. It is true that the bishop voiced his own position in this case, but at any rate, none of other church hierarchs criticised the law or made a statement on their different position.
The problem lies not only in Armenian Society and its being patriarchal and conservative. Certain circles that hold ultra-conservative and anti-Western positions have launched a campaign against the law.
Figures like aforementioned Khachik Stamboltsyan, former nationalist and openly Russia-oriented Hayk Nahapetyan, the chairman of the anti-homosexual and pro-Russian Geopolitical Club, Arman Boshyan, and others are among those, who were against the adoption of the law.
Many arguments of the opponents of the law were taken from the Russian media and some placards were even printed in Russian.
All this was happening against the background of the expectations of the signing of the agreement between the EU and Armenia. It was to this that many Armenian analysts linked the campaign against the law.
Interestingly, Russian involvement in this story is on the opposite side [sentence as published]. Well-known Russian activist Alena Popova arrived in Yerevan to support her Armenian colleagues. This is what she wrote about the events under way in Armenia: "Does this not remind you of anything? I can clearly see [Sergei] Kurginyan's eyes and quotations from Parent Resistance [organisation]. I recall Yelena Borisovna Mizulina, a lawyer, who told me that there is no such problem as domestic violence here and the West is exaggerating all this".
Anyway, the law is adopted, albeit with significant amendments and changes. The adoption of the law is an informal obligation the Armenian government assumed within the context of dialogue with the EU.
Armenia and the EU have now signed the agreement and the process that is to lead to the liberalisation of the visa regime is to start soon. The Armenian government will have to carry out reforms that are no less important in the context of these processes.
And the domestic violence law has shown that other reforms will also have to travel a difficult road. In order to have these reforms carried out, their supporters, even with support from the EU, will have to overcome the resistance not only from influential groups in Armenia [including the government themselves] [square brackets as published], but also external forces.