Armenia after the elections. the time of political reprisals

The final results of the National Assembly elections of Armenia have been summarized. Nikol Pashinyan’s ruling “Civil Contract” party won a majority, though not a constitutional majority. It seemed that the country, which experienced a violent pre-election shock for several months, was waiting for a period of relative stability.

However, a few days after the vote, it became obvious that despite the summer season, the political season in Armenia is not over. Moreover, it is just beginning.

Today, neither the results of the elections, nor the propaganda, nor the fight for the voters’ votes are in the center of attention. The main topic is the government’s actions against key representatives of the opposition.  And if we look at what is happening not as separate episodes, but as one picture, then we get the impression that a new phase of the systematic destruction of the political and economic resources of the opposition camp is beginning in Armenia.

It is especially noteworthy that the forces that are traditionally considered to be in favor of maintaining close relations with Russia, or at least against the country’s sharp geopolitical turn, are under attack.

In fact, it is not only about internal political struggle.  We are talking about the formation of the new political architecture of Armenia.

The first major episode was the case of Samvel Karapetyan. Even before the elections, the authorities had started the process of depriving Karapetyan of the control of the actual “Electrical Grids of Armenia” company. After the elections, that process got further development. The government has prepared legislative mechanisms that can allow the state to establish full control over the company.

The dispute between the state and the owner of the strategic object is not unique.  Such processes take place in many countries of the world, but the Armenian case stands out for its political context. Samvel Karapetyan stopped being exclusively a big businessman a long time ago. After the creation of the “Strong Armenia” party, it turned into one of the key political opponents of the current government. Moreover, it is Karapetyan who is perceived by a significant part of the public and the expert community as a politician aimed at maintaining close relations with Russia. In this regard the question arises whether՞Is it only an economic dispute?՞ the eyewitness We are eliminating the financial base of a potential political competitorhe։

The situation surrounding Gagik Tsarukyan is no less demonstrative. After the elections, the pressures on the structures related to the leader of the “Prosperous Armenia” party have noticeably intensified. At first, problems arose regarding the real estate objects and sports infrastructures owned by him. It was followed by the decisions regarding the “Shangri-La” casino (the license was suspended). Discussions about “Araratcement” continue in parallel.

Each individual episode may have a legal explanation. However, politics is evaluated not only by individual decisions, but also by the overall picture. And the general picture is as follows. one of the largest financial and organizational centers of the Armenian opposition is consistently losing its positions.

It is especially symbolic that this is happening at a time when Tsarukyan’s party itself is trying to dispute the results of the elections and raises many issues related to the vote counting procedure.

It is hard not to notice another pattern. It is not by chance that politicians come under pressure. These are neither small parties, nor public activists, nor second-echelon figures, but the very forces that have been the basis for the so-called pro-Russian sector of Armenian politics for many years: Samvel Karapetyan, Gagik Tsarukyan, Robert Kocharyan, ARF are coming under attack. Presumably, it is the representatives of these political circles who become the object of criminal cases, searches, investigations, economic pressures and political isolation.

The searches conducted at the representatives of Dashnaktsutyun, the actions against Ishkhan Saghatelyan, the discussion of the issue of depriving Robert Kocharyan of parliamentary immunity create the impression that it is no longer about the fight against individual law violations, but about a systemic process.

The prime minister’s rhetoric attracts special attention. When the head of the government announces from the parliamentary podium that he will “smash” his opponents, it becomes not only an emotional expression. Such statements are inevitably perceived as a political impulse to the entire state machine.

After such words, any action of law enforcement agencies automatically begins to be considered through the prism of political motives. The government can claim that it acts exclusively within the framework of the law. The opposition will talk about political persecution, but the main issue for the public is the issue of trust, and trust in such situations begins to decrease rapidly.։ The most interesting thing is the international aspect of what is happening. In recent years, relations between Armenia and Russia have experienced an unprecedented crisis. The military-political cooperation in the previous format has actually been frozen. The level of political trust between the leaders of the two countries has sharply decreased. Problems regularly arise in the trade and economic sphere. Moscow openly expresses dissatisfaction with Yerevan’s foreign policy direction.

In this context, the pro-Russian part of the Armenian political spectrum remains the only platform through which Moscow could potentially maintain political influence within the country. If these forces are finally defeated or pushed out to the periphery of the political system, Russia will actually be deprived of its main political partners inside Armenia.

That is why what is happening has not only domestic but also foreign political significance։ For Moscow, the question is not the fate of individual politicians, but whether there will be any influential force in Armenia that advocates the restoration of a full strategic partnership with Russia.

Moreover, the logic of the government should be understood. For Nikol Pashinyan’s team, the events of recent years are the proof that the former political system is not able to ensure the stable development of the country. The authorities believe that a significant part of the current opposition is connected with the former elites and the oligarchic model of governance. Accordingly, the actions against these figures are considered by the supporters of the government as a continuation of the struggle against the old system.

However, even if we depart from that logic, the question of political consequences remains. The problem with any democracy is that the destruction of strong opposition almost always leads to the weakening of the political system itself. When the competitive environment disappears, the government begins to lose feedback with society. When there are no strong alternative centers of influence, the risk of political mistakes increases. When the majority of the voters stop seeing their representatives in the political field, dissatisfaction begins to accumulate outside the parliamentary institutions.

That is why the main question today is not the fate of Karapetyan, Tsarukyan or Kocharyan. The main question is what the Armenian political system will be like in two or three years.

If the current trend continues, Armenia may get a parliament where the opposition will formally be present, but its real political and financial opportunities will be seriously limited. Such a scenario may provide short-term stability, but in the long-term it carries serious risks.

The history of the post-Soviet space has repeatedly shown that when legitimate political competition disappears, crisis phenomena do not disappear with it, they are simply postponed for the future.

Today it is difficult to talk about the possibility of early elections. In the near future, the government has a stable majority and controls all major state institutions.

However, if the Constitutional Court rejects the demands of the opposition, if the parliamentary struggle is blocked, if the economic pressure on political rivals continues, then in a few years Armenia may face a new wave of turbulence.։ And at that time, the question of early elections will again appear in the center of the political agenda.

The paradox is that after the end of the elections, the country should have entered a period of stabilization, but for now it seems that Armenia is entering a new period of confrontation, where the fight is not for voters’ votes, but for the very right to the existence of a political alternative.

ARTHUR: PETROSYAN

fondsk.ru

Translation by Zhanna Avetisyan

—