BEYOND FREEDOM SQUARE: AN ANALYSIS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND ITS AFTERMATH
by Michael Mensoian
March 15, 2013
Lately a spate of articles have appeared lamenting the general malaise
that has engulfed Armenia. Should we feign surprise or should we be
honest and acknowledge the why of it all? An objective appraisal of
what may be properly referred to as a political miasma can be laid
at the feet of the political leaders irrespective of party affiliation.
Some of these leaders have been corrupted by power once it has been
achieved; others-the political lackeys-function at the behest of
those in power; and finally the political parties that seem to be in
a quandary as to what should be done.
It is time for all concerned, especially those who sat out the election
as well as Raffi Hovannisian, to put the election aside. Mr.
Sarkisian has been reelected President of the Republic of Armenia,
warts and all. (Photo by Khatchig Mouradian) Against that backdrop
the February 2013 presidential election has come and gone. According
to the official results, President Serge Sarkisian with his fine-tuned
Republican Party political machine handily won reelection with nearly
59 percent of the vote cast thus avoiding a run-off. Candidate Raffi
Hovannisian of the Heritage Party made an exemplary showing with
nearly 37 percent of the vote. The usual irregularities were noted by
the opposition and the usual obsequious foreign observers validated
the election process.
If anything came out of this election it was the ascendance of Raffi
Hovannisian as the nation’s principal opposition leader. He understood
the challenges as well as the obstacles that faced his candidacy,
but he offered no excuses and he accepted none. He was willing to
mount the ramparts to wage the good fight on behalf of the Armenian
people and the Armenian nation. His bravado served him well with a
cynical electorate that was in need of a believable anti-incumbent. His
“victory” should encourage the leaders of those political parties that
seek to create a better Armenia to understand how important commitment
and passion are in the eyes of the electorate. Unfortunately, parties
that could have actively supported his candidacy on the campaign
trail, failed to do so. Some of their followers obviously voted for
Mr. Hovannisian, but their numbers might have been far greater if these
parties had actively participated. Raffi Hovannisian’s popularity at
this moment is at its highest level because of his bravura performance
on the political stage. He is perceived, not as a typical politician,
but as an individual imbued with the commitment and passion that
are the sine qua non armor of the crusader who willingly takes on
the Goliath of an entrenched administration that has failed to keep
faith with the Armenian people.
Having said that, it is time for all concerned, especially those
who sat out the election as well as Raffi Hovannisian, to put the
election aside. Mr. Sarkisian has been reelected President of the
Republic of Armenia, warts and all. Carping about what should have
been, could have been, or might have been only adds to the apathy,
disillusionment, and the resignation of the voters to a flawed system.
As the pressure mounts on President Sarkisian, the political leaders
of the concerned parties should speak as one (if that is possible)
to force if necessary, a civil dialog that will lead to the necessary
long-term reforms.
Granted, Mr. Hovannisian has every right to savor the success his
candidacy has had in reshaping the political environment. However, his
claim that the “Citizens of Armenia have spoken clearly today…” has
yet to be determined. Let us keep in mind that 1,000,000 Armenians
did not vote in the presidential election. Was the alternative to
President Sarkisian not sufficiently appealing to gain their support?
Can it be said that the votes Mr. Hovannisian received were entirely
in support of his candidacy or, in the alternative, were a sizable
number of his votes in protest against the incumbent? Again, nearly
40 percent of the registered voters did not participate. Can either
side claim that it has received a mandate from the electorate?
Young Armenian activists joined by concerned university students have
been given an added impetus by Raffi’s candidacy. This is the time for
Mr. Hovannisian to become the statesman that Armenia needs. To date,
his speeches have been inspirational. “Today in the Ararat plain, in
Noah’s world, surges a new flood, clear and clean, and-at the same
time-powerful, historic, and forward looking. It comes to cleanse
our country of all its impurities and lies.” He is visiting various
parts of Armenia with his message of hope and change. Unfortunately,
he is talking to people who have been offered hope and promised change
too many times in the past only to be disillusioned. The inherent
danger in offering hope and change, without some indication of the
obstacles that must be overcome, is that the electorate may be led
to expect more than can be delivered. The voters must be encouraged
to understand the vital role they have in bringing about change.
Presently the Republican Party has a majority of 69 members in a
131-seat parliament. The Prosperous Party led by Gagik Tsarukian
follows with 37 members. The Armenian National Party (7), Rule of Law
Party (6), Armenian Revolutionary Federation (5), Mr. Hovannisian’s
Heritage Party (5), and Non-partisans (2) have the remaining 25
members. It should be noted that the next parliamentary election is
in 2017. This distribution poses a serious challenge to long term
meaningful reform if the principal battlefield is parliament. But, if
not there, where? In the streets? Rallies, demonstrations, strikes,
work slow-downs or stoppages cannot be sustained for an indefinite
period without bringing the government to a standstill. These
activities, while dramatically calling attention to issues, only
exacerbates the onerous condition of the urban worker and his family.
Our people have enough to contend with without adding these disruptive
activities to their daily burden.
The Prosperous Party having sat out the election, evidently has no
iron in the fire concerning voting irregularities, but supports the
right of the opposition to express its concerns. It places itself
in a unique position by supporting the opposition without attacking
the President’s legitimacy. How much better if Mr. Tsarukian used his
influence to broker a meeting between a coalition of opposition leaders
(including leaders of the young activists movement) with President
Sarkisian and key members of his administration to discuss the alleged
campaign and voting irregularities and the need for comprehensive
systemic reforms. This suggestion may seem naïve, but a long drawn
out attempt that may involve, according to Mr. Hovannisian, possible
legal challenges to nullify or to unseat President Sarkisian or a
popular movement that feels denied, could easily lead to government
paralysis or at best to a government beset with a continuing series of
debilitating crises. There are any number of unintended consequences
that could result that would benefit no one, least of all the Armenian
people.
Another thought to consider is that Armenia does not exist in a
vacuum. Foreign governments that may have very little interest in
the welfare of the Armenian people or the country’s flawed political
process do have an interest in what does take place in Armenia.
Although it cannot be reduced to a simple yes or no response, any
number of governments (Russia, western Europe, Iran, and the United
States) would prefer to see President Sarkisian preside over the
status quo without any disruptive opposition to contend with. Other
governments (Turkey and Azerbaijan) can see the advantages associated
with a chaotic or crisis driven government in Yerevan. A politically
destabilized political environment could well be fertile ground
for the Protocols to be resurrected. It is a known objective of
the United States government to have the Protocols ratified. Would
destabilization push Armenia further into the Russian sphere (joining
a reoriented Georgia under Prime Minister Ivanishvili) away from a
western orientation? And Artsakh? Would this be an opportune time for a
resumption of hostilities by Azerbaijan? And would the promised changes
for our brothers and sisters in Javakhk (Georgia’s Samtskhe-Javakheti
region) fall by the wayside? How might relations between diasporan
philanthropic and humanitarian organizations and Yerevan be affected?
This post-election period will surely be one of the most contentious
as well as the most critical for the Armenian people and for Armenia.
Hopefully, the electorate will not be witness to inter-party jockeying
for status by political leaders or a failure by the opposition to stay
on message. This is a pivotal moment that comes with no guarantees
of success for the opposition. To place all the ills facing Armenia
on President Sarkisian may be politically expedient, but unfair.
Political leaders of all the parties have been complicit, in one
way or another, in greater or smaller measure in allowing conditions
in Armenia to deteriorate since independence was declared in 1991. A
systemic problem exists that must be addressed. This is the opportunity
to begin that arduous process. The opposition, if it can remain
unified, must have a plan that involves more than the appealing
thought of changing the name on the door to the president’s office.
Hopefully the forces for change can build on what Raffi Hovannisian
describes as the “people’s victory.”
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/03/15/beyond-freedom-square-an-analysis-of-the-presidential-election-and-its-aftermath/