A Story of Defiance: Activists Reject International Observers’
Assessment of Election
by Nanore Barsoumian
February 23, 2013
YEREVAN (A.W.) – On Feb. 19, some ten minutes into a press conference
during which the international election observation mission presented
their assessment of the Feb. 18 Armenian presidential election, a
young woman marched to the front of the room, slipped away from the
grip of the security personnel, faced the media, and began reading
from her clipboard, her small voice unfazed, floating above the voices
in the crowd.
Lena Nazaryan reads her statement during the press conference.
`Dear political tourists, we have had enough of your efforts to
legitimize the fraudulent elections,’ she read. `The recent
presidential election in Armenia, when compared to previous
presidential elections, has registered one step forward and three
steps backwards, two steps to the right and half a step to the left.
In other words, they haven’t corresponded to the Constitution of
Armenia, to the requirements of the Election Code, and to
international standards.’
By disrupting the press conference that would in effect rubber-stamp
the results of the election, Lena Nazaryan wanted to convey to her
compatriots and the world that only the citizens of Armenia could
grant legitimacy to those elected.
Nazaryan later told the Armenian Weekly that she knew she would not
remain silent if the assessment presented by the international
observers ultimately acquiesced to the authorities and – what she
considered – their brazen efforts to steal the election. `I had decided
to interrupt the conference if I deemed it to contradict reality. And
that’s what I did,’ she said.
`I am certain that the elections were rigged,’ she continued. `I was
not asking the [international observers] to revise their assessment. I
simply wanted to tell the citizens of Armenia that they are the ones
who should assess the elections, and they are the ones who have to
guard their votes. I’ve never been a Heritage Party supporter, but I
am ready to protect the rights of all those citizens who cast their
votes for Raffi Hovannisian.’
A day earlier, Nazaryan spent the day, well into the night, as an
observer at precincts 17/2 and 17/3 in Ardashad, where she faced
harassment throughout the day. She was called an `idiot’ and told to
`get lost’ by a man, presumably a voter, appearing to be friends with
the Republican Party proxy stationed there. Her efforts to document
events on her video camera – something she says she is allowed to do as
an observer – were met with resistance. Even the Republican Party proxy
would threaten her. The president of the precinct remained
disinterested, refraining from admonishing trouble-makers.
`Their aim was to drive me away from that precinct. Throughout the
day, insults were hurled at me. The president of that precinct was on
more than friendly terms with the Republican representatives; they
whispered in corners throughout the day, and he did not miss a chance
to verbally attack me. It was clear that I was interfering with their
plans,’ she said.
In the adjacent Precinct 17/2, where Nazaryan’s colleague was
stationed as an observer, the situation seems to have been worse.
`There was ballot stuffing, the observer’s video camera was stolen, he
was constantly cursed and subjected to threats, and there was even an
invitation to participate in a `carousel,” said Nazaryan, who was one
of the 48 `Europe in Law Association’ observers and around 6,250
registered local observers that day. A carousel is a form of election
fraud whereby a pre-marked ballot is given to a voter who is asked to
return with an unmarked one in order to get paid.
By the end of Election Day, over 350 instances of irregularities,
ranging from threats to bribery and vote rigging, were reported on the
online election monitoring site iDitord.org.
Nazaryan told the Weekly that she felt `hopeless’ and `disappointed’
upon returning to Yerevan. Then, she received a phone-call from a
friend, who informed her that the international observers were
preparing to give a statement – most likely, a wishy-washy, vague
assessment, she said. The friend told her that, along with a few
others, they were preparing an alternative text. `Someone had to do
it,’ said Nazaryan. `So, I too went to Marriott and I waited until
they were done presenting their argument. Their assessment did not
correspond with reality. They said that Armenia had taken a step
forward, when compared to the previous elections, and that it would
soon become a democracy. They didn’t say how many kilometers were left
to reach democracy. Everything was clear to me by then. I interrupted
their event and said the following: `Dear political tourists, you are
legitimizing the fraudulent elections. You are trampling upon the very
same democratic principles that you yourselves have adopted.”
`This was my personal response to the treacherous, foul mouthed,
thuggish and criminal local representatives of the Republican Party at
precincts 17/2 and 17/3, and the presidents of the local precincts who
sold their principles and did not remain accountable to local
observers. They cursed and harassed the local observers, and assumed
an angelic demeanor in the presence of the international ones,’ she
said.
And that is why she believes the conclusion reached by her and her
peers represent the realities on the ground, and not the manicured
version witnessed by the international observers during their short
visits to the precincts.
Nazaryan is not alone. Many others have criticized the assessment
presented by the international election observation mission comprising
of representatives from the Organization for Security and Co-operation
in Europe (OSCE), Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
(PACE), and the European Parliament (EP). Although the international
observer mission did note `some key concerns,’ overall it deemed the
election `well-administered,’ and `characterized by a respect for
fundamental freedoms.’ Personal accounts from observers, journalists,
and citizens that have appeared on news and social networking sites
challenge that conclusion. One such account, the story of a
Transparency International observer Narine Esmaeili who was pinned
against the wall while ballot stuffing took place, went viral on
social networking sites. The international observation mission did not
allude to that incident in their statements, even though, according to
Esmaeili, `this was probably the biggest cheating in all of Armenia,’
involving 400 or so fraudulent votes.
Policy Forum Armenia published the results of its preliminary analysis
on the elections, where it stated, `Our results strongly indicate that
the final outcome of [the] February 2013 election was subject to
massive manipulations and interference and did not reflect the free
will of the Armenian citizens. They also call into question the role
of foreign election observers in the Armenian context, specifically
their impartiality and ability to detect election fraud that is
becoming ever more sophisticated.’
Nazaryan says the next order of business is to declare the official
results of the Feb. 18 elections unlawful and to demand a new round of
elections, where all civil society resources will serve to guarantee a
free and fair election. `It is time for Armenia to have a legitimate
president,’ she told the Weekly, and added, `We do not recognize or
accept any heroes or saviors. We believe in and accept you alone,
citizen of the Republic of Armenia, because you are the bearer of
authority.’
***
Below is a translation of the statement read by Nazaryan during the
international observation mission press conference, as published on
CivilNet.
Dear political tourists, we have had enough of your efforts to
legitimize the fraudulent elections.
The recent presidential election in Armenia, when compared to previous
presidential elections, has registered one step forward and three
steps backwards, two steps to the right and a half step to the left.
In a word, they haven’t corresponded to the RA Constitution, to the
demands of the Election Code as well as international standards.
The elections have proceeded against the backdrop of proposed reforms
to the Election Code by the parliamentary opposition that were
rejected by the ruling majority. Even though international and
domestic observers, rights defenders and the opposition raised
concerns, especially regarding glaring inaccuracies in the voter
rolls, after the parliamentary election, nevertheless, the ruling
authorities did nothing to fix the problem before this recent
presidential election.
In essence, last year’s parliamentary election and yesterday’s
presidential election took place on the same legal-normative basis.
Of note is the fact that in the February 18 presidential election none
of Armenia’s primary political opposition forces either nominated
their own candidate or supported any of the nominated candidates. I
refer to the Armenian National Congress, Prosperous Armenia, the ARF
and the Free Democrats. This is ample proof that the election was not
truly competitive.
The fact that none of the primary opposition groups refused to
nominate their own candidate or support any other candidate running,
points to the deep level of mistrust of citizens and political forces
regarding the electoral process.
Thus, the opposition forces in the parliament, from the outset, have
labeled the presidential election as a farce and a show, since as
previously noted, the ruling majority squashed the passage of election
reforms proposed by the opposition prior to the election period.
Even though on the surface there was the appearance that important
democratic freedoms were being safeguarded during the campaign,
including the right to run a free campaign, in reality, the campaign
was noteworthy by its competitive inequality in favor of the candidate
of the regime. In particular, administrative resources and powers were
put into the service of the latter. This was accomplished via pressure
brought to bear on state and public employees to attend campaign
events of Serzh Sargsyan and to vote in his favor.
The election campaign did not proceed peacefully. Violence was
inflicted on candidate Paruyr Hayrikian. The man was shot. Another
candidate, Andreas Ghoukasyan, staged a hunger strike to protest the
electoral process which he labeled a mere show. The press covered
cases of violence even on Election Day.
The campaign also stood out by its lack of political and individual
professionalism. Candidates employed the crudest of language and
public relation stunts. For example, the various incidents that took
place during the campaign conducted by the regime’s candidate were
widely mocked by large segments of society. As a consequence, citizens
tended not to take the election process seriously.
On Election Day, polling precincts were transformed into theatrical
stages where citizens showed their attitude to the process. The press
and social internet sites were full of ballots invalidated by voters
who drew caricatures on them. They drew images of figures from the
plant and animal world, images lifted from fairy tales and television
cartoon characters. In one precinct, a voter literally ate his ballot
as a sign of protest. It significant to note that according to
official statistics, the number of invalidated ballots came in third
place.
Reports of duplicate voting, ballot stuffing, bribes, and substitute
voting and other scams were raised throughout the election itself.
Thus, yesterday’s presidential election in Armenia can be described as
yet another normal appalling election.
Dear political tourists, we’ve had enough of you legitimizing the
fraudulent election. You are trampling those democratic values that
you yourselves have broken.
http://hetq.am/eng/news/23768/the-police-warns-raffi-hovhannisyan.html