Was Armenia’s Parliamentary Election A Step Backwards?
May 08, 2012
Armenia’s parliamentary elections on May 6 were plagued by numerous
violations and glitches.
Related Articles
Azatutyun Correspondent is Assaulted on Election DayArmenian National
Congress Wins SeatsArmenia Gears Up For De-Ideologized ElectionTEXT
SIZE – + May 08, 2012
Over the past year, Armenia’s President Serzh Sarkisian repeatedly
affirmed that he was intent on ensuring that the May 6 parliamentary
ballot would be the most democratic in Armenia’s post-Soviet history.
Armenia’s foreign partners wholeheartedly supported that intention.
U.S. Ambassador John Heffern told RFE/RL’s Armenian Service last fall
that Washington was working with Yerevan to ensure that the 2012
parliamentary ballot and the presidential election in 2013 would be
“the best elections ever and fully consistent with international
standards.”
The May 6 parliamentary ballot failed, however, to measure up to those
expectations. Indeed, in two key respects it appears to have been more
seriously flawed than the previous parliamentary election in 2007.
True, all eight parties and one bloc that sought to register succeeded
in doing so, and were able to campaign freely.
But, as the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM) noted in
a press release on May 7, pressure on voters by local officials from
Sarkisian’s Republican Party of Armenia (HHK) and election
commissions’ dismissal of many appeals and complaints “created an
unequal playing field.”
There were numerous reports of vote-buying by the HHK. Purportedly
charitable activities by its coalition partner Prosperous Armenia
(BH), including the distribution of some 500 tractors in rural areas
by a company owned by BH chairman Gagik Tsarukian, were seen by
international election monitors as incompatible with the new electoral
code.
Inaccurate Electoral Rolls
In addition, continued problems arising from inaccurate electoral
rolls compounded voters’ lack of trust in the fairness of the election
process.
On behalf of the Inter-Party Center for Public Oversight of the
Elections established by BH, the opposition Armenian National Congress
(HAK), and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (HHD), 28 members of
the outgoing parliament appealed late last month to Armenia’s
Constitutional Court to lift the ban on publishing lists after the
elections of those voters who cast ballots.
The Court rejected that appeal on May 5.
x
Numerous procedural violations and glitches were reported on
polling-day, including overcrowding at polling stations and what one
international monitor described as “less than productive” attempts by
domestic observers or proxies from the various opposition parties to
assume duties that are the prerogative of precinct commission
personnel.
At one polling station in Kotayk province, a precinct official
invalidated ballot papers filled out by persons he suspected of voting
for a party other than the HHK by placing them in the wrong ballot
box. (Each voter was required to complete one ballot paper for the
majoritarian candidate in his constituency and one for the nationwide
party-list vote. They were to be deposited in separate ballot boxes.)
Disappearing Ink
The most publicized and potentially the most damaging glitch was the
use of ink that faded within minutes to mark voters’ passports to
preclude multiple voting; it was supposed to disappear only after 12
hours. (Polling stations were open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.).
Central Election Commission Chairman Tigran Mukuchian’s explanation
that the ink faded only because the bottle had not been shaken
vigorously before use was immediately shown to be spurious.
These problems with marking passports led the Inter-Party Center for
Public Oversight of the Elections to release a statement while voting
was still going on; saying that the legality of the poll was under
threat.
The preliminary assessment by the IEOM was equivocal. It acknowledged
the “open and peaceful campaign,” but added that “several
stakeholders” failed to comply with the revamped election law.
Specifically, it noted “organizational problems, undue interference in
the process and cases of significant violations … in a significant
number of polling stations visited.”
Observers from the IEOM visited almost 1,000 polling stations in the
course of the day, and gave a negative assessment of the voting that
took place at 10 percent of them. By contrast, in 2007, the IEOM
described voting as “good or very good” at 94 percent of polling
stations visited.
The vote count too was also assessed negatively this time in “almost
one fifth” of the 102 polling stations where observers were present,
compared with 17 percent in 2007.
Positive Spin
HHK spokesman Eduard Sharmazanov sought to put a positive spin on the
observers’ evaluation.
He told RFE/RL’s Armenian Service that the negative assessment of the
voting in 10 percent of the polling stations visited means that the
vote was “flawless” in 90 percent of the 1,982 polling stations.
Preliminary results of the vote suggest that the HHK has increased its
share of the parliament mandates, even though the three coalition
members had signed a formal pledge in February 2011 not to seek to do
so at each others’ expense.
The HHK had 62 of the 131 mandates in the outgoing parliament. It has
reportedly won in 32 of the 41 single-mandate constituencies, in
addition to garnering 44.05 percent of the proportional vote. That
translates into at least 40 of the 90 mandates allocated under the
party-list system, giving a total of at least 72.
BH, which has 22 mandates in the outgoing parliament, is in second
place with 30 percent of the proportional vote plus seven
single-mandate constituencies.
The opposition HAK polled 7.07 percent of the proportional vote,
winning parliamentary representation for the first time. The
opposition Heritage party garnered 5.75 percent; the HHD received 5.69
percent; and the Law-Based State part, the third member of the ruling
coalition, got 5.49 percent. All three were represented in the
outgoing parliament.
The Communist Party of Armenia, the Democratic Party of Armenia and
the United Armenians Party failed to get the minimum 5 percent of the
proportional vote to qualify for parliamentary representation.
Voter turnout was measured at 62.2 percent, 10 percent higher than in 2007.
The Inter-Party Center for Public Oversight of the Elections has still
not commented on the election outcome, possibly because the Central
Election Commission has not yet made public the final results.
But senior HAK member Levon Zurabian branded the ballot “disgraceful,”
accusing the authorities of “resorting to the full range of
falsifications” to remain in power.
http://www.rferl.org/content/armenia_elections_step_backward/24574517.html