Moving Forward in Stages: An Interview with ARF’s Armen Rustamyan
Posted by Serouj
Aprahamianon
March 31, 2013
YEREVAN, Armenia (A.W.) – The Armenian Weekly’s correspondent in
Yerevan sat down on March 28 with ARF Supreme Council representative
Armen Rustamyan, to talk about developments in the aftermath of
Armenia’s presidential election and the ARF’s outlook on the eve of
Yerevan’s municipal vote. Rustamyan heads the ARF’s electoral list in
the upcoming city elections, scheduled for May 5. [image: 1×1.trans
Moving Forward in Stages: An Interview with ARF’s Armen Rustamyan]
Rustamyan on Freedom Square in february 2013. (Photo by Photolur)
The Armenian Weekly – How would you characterize the post-election period
in Armenia and the protest movement that has coalesced around Raffi
Hovannisian?
Armen Rustamyan – Something of a tradition has developed in Armenia where
after every election, especially presidential ones, the country enters a
state of tension. One of the main reasons for this is that the majority of
the public simply does not believe in the results. They don’t believe in
the legitimacy of the elections. Irregularities make it impossible to
confidently state who the true winners and losers are.
Such a state of affairs naturally brings us to a point of post-electoral
turmoil, which once again proved to be unavoidable. This is now the second
election since 2008 that has not gone past the first round and we see the
polarized environment the country has been placed in.
The presidential candidate [Raffi Hovannisian] who, based on official
results, came in second continues not to recognize the outcome of the
election, began a hunger strike, is rallying in the streets, and is
traveling to the regions. The public’s disappointment is also very
obvious. Thus, it is apparent that we are in a post-election crisis.
The country will continue to experience such crises as long as there are
two fundamental problems that are not resolved.
First, the public’s mistrust comes from the fact that, until today,
elections in Armenia are not a means for changing the regime. They never
have been. Since independence, there has not been one administration that
has replaced another through an election. This is a fact. No country in the
world, especially one undergoing transition, can afford to have such a low
level of democracy, where the authorities constantly maintain their power.
This state of affairs suggests that something is clearly wrong.
Secondly, not only is the electoral system not improving or becoming more
democratic but, rather, just the opposite is occurring. Each regime does
everything it can to reproduce itself and fortify its position. We have
seen this phenomenon with every administration since independence. Each
regime has unsparingly abused its official position and its executive
resources for the benefit of maintaining power.
In addition, there are no mechanisms in place for the true volume of
electoral fraud to be detected, so as to legally protest the results and
reach a point where elections can be contested. Both the public and
opposition lack the tools necessary to comprehensively document the extent
of the violations and prove the illegitimacy of elections. This is one of
the key reasons the authorities are able to announce after each election
that some violations did occur, but were not significant enough to affect
the overall outcome of the race.
We have yet to be able to come out of this defective situation and, today,
we are seeing the same scenario repeating.
A.W. – Many people in both Armenia and the Diaspora had hope that the
movement around Raffi would open up a new page for a healthy opposition to
form in the country and struggle for change collectively. Where does the
ARF stand today vis-à-vis this movement?
A.R. – We naturally joined the movement because, for us, it was clear that
it was not about Raffi Hovannisian but, rather, about the situation in the
country. In other words, we feel strongly that we must overcome this
defective situation and reach a point where elections are actually a means
for changing the regime. This can happen only when citizens understand
their democratic rights and raise enough of an uproar to affect change in a
proper manner. Thus, we naturally were in Freedom Square from the very
beginning, stood with the people, and we continue to remain at their side
today.
We simply need to understand that in Armenia – since there is no immediate
way to reverse the outcome of an election (either legally or politically)
or to form a new government – we must work toward change in a step-by-step,
phase-by-phase fashion. The maximalist `everything now’ approach can either
lead to bloodshed (which we have seen in the recent past and which is
unacceptable to us) or disillusionment. If the goal is `everything now’ and
that is not realized, what would the people who believed in that be left
with? They will naturally be disillusioned.
That is why we’ve suggested a middle-ground option that moves forward in
stages, achieving tangible results and securing regime change gradually.
We saw two fundamental opportunities to go down this route, and we’ve begun
that process. We proposed this strategy to the movement leadership and
Raffi Hovannisian personally, from day one. Given such an approach, we were
prepared to have a much more direct involvement in the movement, helping
organize it and shape it. For us, one thing is clear: the movement must
become a strong actor which directs changes on the ground and has an affect
on the government. In this regard, we suggested several concrete steps.
For example, one necessary step is to steer the government toward critical
and meaningful reforms. That is why we put forth three problems that must
be resolved right away and are at the core of so much public discontent.
First, the state and the ruling party are indistinguishable – this needs to
change. If we can’t free ourselves from this situation, we will not have
normal elections nor will we change the reality in the country. So, we must
naturally eliminate this root problem.
Second, we must change the government structure to a parliamentary system
and change the voting system from a majoritarian to a fully proportional
one.
Finally, we must give the citizenry and opposition the tools necessary to
actually monitor electoral violations. They must be able to document the
real volume of fraud so as to challenge electoral outcomes through legal
means when necessary, without civil disturbances.
A.W. – Those tools don’t exist right now?
A.R. – No, they don’t. For example, one of the tools that we suggested to
the government – and which was rejected – is that the voter lists be made
public after elections. This would give us the ability to identify the
number of voters in the country, and see if others are voting in the name
of people who are outside the country. That would allow us to document the
true scope of fraud. We have put similar proposals forward but it is no
accident that the authorities categorically reject them. They don’t want
to give the opposition such tools that detect violations.
Furthermore, after these systematic changes are made, new National Assembly
elections must be called. This would give the country a new parliament of
greater quality and authority.
We also need to make it possible for the opposition to monitor and
counterbalance the activities of the government. For that, we need new
legal levers in the sphere of electoral monitoring. We began negotiations
on this process but, I have to say, they were not given much value by the
leadership of the movement. They felt that going down this path would
somehow weaken them. That same approach of `everything now’ affected their
decision-making in this regard. This initiative was not fully pursued, but
the possibility of resuscitating it is still on the agenda and we stand by
it.
Of course, the upcoming Yerevan municipal election is another timely
opportunity for us to move forward, given its close proximity to the
presidential election. That which was not achieved in the presidential race
can be realized during the Yerevan city elections. We believe we can secure
a more thorough electoral process and come to power in Yerevan. We would
all only benefit from such a result because it is one thing to have a
movement without a mayor; it’s another to have a movement with an
opposition mayor in place. The movement would take on a whole new quality.
It is in this regard that we have put forward proposals to politicize the
municipal elections and unify all of the non-regime forces under one list.
This would have secured us a guaranteed victory. Unfortunately, that
unification did not take place.
It didn’t take place due to the ambitions of the other parties involved.
Now, some are trying to say that they didn’t have ambitions; that they did
everything they could to make it work. But let them explain why exactly the
talks to unify the ARF, Heritage, and Prosperous Armenia parties under one
electoral bloc failed. Whose fault was that?
It is clear that the ARF did everything in its power to make unification
work, including minimizing its aspirations and requirements for heading the
list. Meanwhile, the other parties did just the opposite. When they didn’t
receive an agreement sufficient to their ambitions, the unification talks
failed and the process of reaching our collective goals only became more
difficult.
Afterwards, we continued to pursue partial solutions such as pairing up
under a dual party bloc, even though we knew this would not be as
effective. However, we did everything we could to achieve unity – but on a
political basis, not a civic one which our colleagues advocated. They could
not recognize that a political struggle is what’s needed for these
elections. A civic approach is what the ruling authorities want so they can
blur the political significance of this struggle.
Only by giving the elections political significance will the people
understand that this contest is on the scale of the presidential race – just
that, for now, confined to the borders of Yerevan. This is what needs to be
stressed. Unfortunately, until now, our approach has not been fully
appreciated.
But let me say that everything is not lost. Each political power has
entered the race separately and we can still reach power in Yervan’s
municipal government by forming an alliance after the elections.
A.W. – What are your thoughts on the recent exchange of letters between
Raffi Hovannisian and Serzh Sargsyan?
A.R. – I find the lack of formal negotiations between the two to be mostly
posturing. The main obstacle has become the location of the meeting,
which, for me, is incomprehensible. It should be a public meeting
independent of where the actual location is. But it should have been public
from the very first sit-down they had [right after the presidential
election].
The negotiations should be broadcast live, not only for people in Freedom
Square, but for all Armenians and all of Armenia to see. Broadcast it on
TV, sit down with each other, speak for a few hours, and let the citizens
understand what is happening. Putting so much emphasis on where to meet is
not very productive, in my opinion.
Of course, the more fundamental question is what the people would gain from
such a dialogue. To have dialogue for the sake of dialogue or to
demonstrate civility is something we have seen in the past, and the people
have not gained much from that. The public will only benefit, in our
opinion, when the real issues at hand are addressed.
If, for example, there is agreement over the three issues we noted, we will
have a new Armenia in two-three years, with a completely new character. New
elections will take place in a new system, a new parliament will be formed,
and the process will take place properly because the opposition will have
the tools to oversee it. It will have the levers to check and balance the
government.
A.W. – If none of your proposed electoral reforms have been implemented so
far, how are the elections in Armenia going to change for the Yerevan race
in May? How can you ensure that free and fair elections worth participating
in are conducted?
A.R. – Well, look, this same issue could have been a good topic for the
dialogue with the regime we spoke of earlier. Establishing clear mechanisms
for supervising the elections and guaranteeing that they will take place
without fraud could have been one of the items on the top of the agenda. We
could have cleaned the slate of violations from this last presidential race
with the example set by the upcoming Yerevan municipal elections. This was
and still is possible to do.
The opposition parties today also have the power to fill 50 percent of the
precinct committees and carry out monitoring of the elections more
thoroughly. After all, each party has its own interest to protect votes
this time and that will give us greater possibilities to oversee each
precinct.
Of course, the authorities will try to move their sphere of violations
outside of the precincts, as they did in the last National Assembly
elections. When the monitoring and observation increased in the precincts
last year (through the unified opposition headquarters which was
established, and so on), we saw the degree of violations decrease on
Election Day. As a result, the regime needed to increase the volume of
bribes it gave out to compensate for what they could no longer get away
with. And the distribution of those bribes took place outside of the
precincts.
The same situation can arise again because the monitoring of precincts will
likely be on a higher level in these elections than in this last
presidential vote. There is a serious danger that the regime will try to
resort to bribery again.
A.W. – The ARF’s official slogan for the upcoming Yerevan elections is
`Yerevan, Change Armenia.’ What is the message you are trying to convey
with this slogan and campaign?
A.R. – What we are saying is that these upcoming elections are tied to the
fundamental issues facing the country. We are convinced that if we succeed
in changing the regime in Yerevan, we will also change the reality in the
country overall. A victory for the opposition in Yerevan will open up a new
page in our modern history. Something like that has not happened yet.
A.W. – Seeing as you are at the top of the ARF’s electoral list, what would
you do if you were to become Mayor of Yerevan?
A.R. – If I was mayor I would show through the example of Yerevan what
people’s rule truly means. That would be what I would do, first and
foremost.
People would see that there is law and order in the city and that rules are
actually implemented. That is what I would do. Along these lines, the
office of mayor has various tools at its disposal that today are not being
utilized.
For example, to establish such law and order, the mayor today has the power
to appoint municipal police. Right now, there is no such thing. Why?
Because they are all from the same team; they are members of the same
political party. It would make absolutely no sense for them to create a
parallel police force next to the state one they already control. That
makes no sense for them.
But for us, if we were in power as an opposition force in the mayor’s
office, that makes complete sense. Because I don’t trust those police and
I’ll say that openly. Therefore, that tool that I spoke about will be
something I would utilize to make sure nobody in Yerevan is above the law,
no matter who they are. I would have that tool. Right now I don’t have it.
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/03/31/moving-forward-in-stages-an-interview-with-arfs-armen-rustamyan/