Transitions Online, Czech Republic
March 7 2008
Soviet Armenia
by TOL
7 March 2008
By muzzling the press and dissenters, the regime in Yerevan fails
another test of democracy.
It’s a familiar refrain. The government-run media lavish attention on
the heir-apparent and ignore opposition candidates. Public employees
are given not-so-subtle reminders before election day of who butters
their bread. The political elite dismiss outside criticism. And to no
one’s surprise, the anointed successor walks away with the
presidency.
It sounds like Russia, which held its sham presidential election on
Sunday. But it also describes Armenia, a former Soviet republic that
still has close ties to Moscow. The difference is that the aftermath
of yet another faulty Armenian election was marked by a deadly
crackdown on demonstrators and an assault on human rights.
Armenians are all too familiar with tragedy and dictatorship. The
feisty nation endured invasions, genocide and 70 years of communism
imposed on it by outsiders. But the years since independence in 1991
have been marked chiefly by problems of Armenia’s own making. The
country is still paying the price for its costly turf war with
Azerbaijan in the early 1990s. Its belligerent relationship with
Turkey damages its economic potential. And despite huge investments
from its well-connected diaspora and do-good aid programs, it is
still a nation sabotaged by corrupt, clannish, and sometimes violent
politics.
Robert Kocharian
It all starts at the top, where President Robert Kocharian is about
to hand power to his longtime ally, Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisian.
In the 19 February presidential contest, the prime minister defeated
his main challenger, former President Levon Ter-Petrosian, by a
30-point margin. Ter-Petrosian’s supporters immediately declared the
election a fraud and took to the streets.
International election monitors reported that hopes for a clean
contest were marred by bias in the government media, evidence that
public employees were compelled to vote for the ruling Republican
Party, and incidents of violence. The Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe reported several attacks on campaign workers
and the offices of Ter-Petrosian just days before the election. The
OSCE said the attacks contributed to `the increasingly tense
pre-election environment.’
OMINOUS WARNING
It was an ominous warning of things to come. After days of
demonstrations, security forces attacked protesters in central
Yerevan last weekend. In the ensuing chaos, as many as eight people
were killed and dozens of others – including police officers – were
wounded. Human Rights Watch, along with other monitors, called on the
government to investigate what several eyewitnesses said was
excessive use of force. A glance at the websites of media and
bloggers intrepid enough to report the incidents, such as the
Armenian investigative journalism site HETQ Online, ArmeniaNow, and
TOL’s Armenian Patchwork blog, shows menacing security forces, badly
beaten victims, the hulks of burned-out police vehicles, and streets
littered with debris.
Kocharian declared a 20-day state of emergency on 1 March, banning
the right of assembly and muzzling all but `official information.’ In
a speech to the nation that harkened back to Soviet crackdowns on
dissent, he accused protesters of `illegal activities’ and
challenging `stability’ and `constitutional order.’ This week, the
Sarkisian-controlled parliament waived immunity from prosecution for
four opposition lawmakers accused of fomenting unrest.
The government has a duty to maintain order, and in a country like
Armenia that is too often given to Wild West politics, it is no easy
task. But people in democracies have a right to be informed, to
express themselves, to assemble, to complain about their government,
and to demonstrate against their public servants. Strong democracies
can withstand criticism and dissent, but strong democracies are not
built from the top down.
TOP HEAVY AND UNACCOUNTABLE
Armenia’s constitution – which vests inordinate power at the top – is
partly to blame for the country’s current crisis. Its political
culture is another. Stephan H. Astourian, who heads the Armenian
studies program at the University of California at Berkeley, has
described the party system in Armenia as one of `a limited geographic
scope, ideological fuzziness, and weak institutionalization. These
are essentially personalistic organizations, instruments for the
ambitions of a more or less well-known individual and his clientele.’
Serzh Sarkisian
Donors also contribute to the crisis. They tend to chart Armenia’s
economic gains as a sign of overall progress without demanding more
accountability. A 2005 report from the U.S. Agency for International
Development suggests there isn’t much to show for the millions of
dollars Washington pumps into democracy-building and anti-corruption
programs each year:
`Although Armenia has been independent for almost fifteen years,
autocratic mentalities and practices remain embedded. The government
is dominated by the executive branch and is without meaningful checks
and balances. The judiciary is not independent, and rulings are
politically biased. A symbiotic relationship between political and
business elites has bred endemic corruption and severely hampers the
ability of opposition parties to raise funds or access the electronic
media.’
The opposition, such as it is, has offered little as an alternative.
Ter-Petrosian himself was accused of cronyism during the economic
privatizations in the early years of the republic, and of rigging his
1996 re-election as president. Two years later he was forced to cede
power to his prime minister, Kocharian, but returned from political
obscurity a decade later determined to reclaim his old office. He
denies inciting his supporters, but he was back in court this week
challenging the official results rather than seeking an end to the
crisis.
The president’s job would not be easy for any leader in an isolated,
bitterly divided society where too much blood has been spilled
already. If he is to succeed where Kocharian and Ter-Petrosian both
failed, Sarkisian will have to make peace with neighboring nations,
heal the domestic wounds, create a public-service ethic, and
decentralize his own authority.
The president-elect should start by demanding that Kocharian lift the
emergency decree and remove the shackles from the media. Times of
crisis are when people most need information, not government-imposed
silence.