ARMENIA: CIVIL SOCIETY PROPONENTS MULL WAYS TO ENERGIZE DEMOCRATIZATION PROCESS
by Marianna Grigoryan
AzeriReport
Oct 14 2011
With political jockeying already underway in advance of Armenia’s
parliamentary vote next spring, civil society activists are pondering
ways to use the Internet to promote electoral transparency.
Since the last parliamentary vote in 2008, Internet access has
boomed in Armenia, experiencing 700-percent growth from 2009 to 2010
alone, according to data compiled by the Public Services Regulatory
Commission. At present, roughly half the population is now able
to obtain news and information via online outlets. Activists are
hopeful that the Internet’s popularity can help address one of the
most problematic areas of past elections, not only in Armenia but in
most post-Soviet states – the manipulation of media outlets to favor
selected candidates.
Not only can the Internet contribute to a more lively civic debate
during the campaign, facilitating the broad dissemination of a
variety of viewpoints, it can be utilized as a means to improve media
monitoring, suggested Varuzhan Hoktanian, the executive director of
the Yerevan office of the international watchdog group, Transparency
International.
Hoktanian and other leading civil society activists participated
in a conference, held October 6-8 in Yerevan, that considered ways
to catalyze democratization in Armenia. The conference, titled What
Future for Democracy and Civil Society, was co-sponsored by the Open
Society Foundations-Armenia (OSFA) and Counterpart International
Armenia. [Editor’s note: EurasiaNet.org operates under the auspices
of the New York-based Open Society Foundations, which, like OSFA,
is part of the Soros Foundations Network].
According to Larisa Minasyan, the executive director of OSFA, the
conference sought to create “a platform for new ideas and forward
thinking, and promote an open, public debate” on democratization
issues. Minasyan voiced hope that the ideas arising out of
the conference could inject a measure of clarity into what she
characterized as an “inconclusive picture for the future of democratic
governance” in Armenia.
Civil society activists have high hopes that the Internet can help
encourage the opening of society, providing a vital tool for watchdogs
to spread their messages. Some participants noted the success of
a grassroots group called We Won’t Stay Quiet (Chenk Lrelu), run
by a team of four 20-somethings. The group’s online video reports,
distributed via YouTube, have highlighted an array of social issues,
including the hazing of military conscripts and faulty historical
preservation projects. Public outrage generated by the reports,
in some instances, prompted government action to address flaws.
Such groups could help promote transparency during the election
season, noted a conference participant, Ashot Melikian, chair of
the Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression. Internet watchdogs
could play a particularly important role during the early phase of
the campaign by calling attention to media-based dirty tricks and
slanted reporting. “Taking into consideration Internet access and
the use of different technologies which will help record [election]
violations and distribute the information through the Internet,
I think the authorities should make every effort to ensure fair and
transparent elections,” Melikian said.
While the Internet may prove a valuable tool for activists, it can’t
serve as a guarantor of a free-and-fair election process, stressed
Transparency International’s Hoktanian. While “there are more tools
to point out violations [of election laws], … those who count the
votes still remain the same,” Hoktanian noted.
Hermine Harutiunian, the chief spokesperson for Central Election
Commission, sought to reassure conference participants that the
electoral results in 2012 would be an open and accurate reflection
of voter preferences. The modernization of “the computer network”
and other technical equipment will enable to posting of regular
online updates of election returns, thus promoting transparency,
Harutiunian said.
The conference also spent time considering the state of Armenia’s
judiciary, specifically the perception that Armenian judges are
subordinate to the executive branch. Participants noted that following
election-related violence in 2008, the courts were widely perceived
to be used by President Serzh Sargsyan’s administration as a tool to
punish government critics. Arevhat Grigorian, a media expert at the
Yerevan Press Club, also pointed out that the judicial system went
along with a government move to silence online media outlets that
attempted “to publish anything other than government statements”
during the immediate aftermath of the 2008 clashes.
In contrast to the media environment, not much has changed since
2008 when it comes to judicial independence: the government retains
a far-reaching ability to influence judicial decisions, said Hrayr
Ghukasian, a law professor at Yerevan State University.
“The Justice Council of Armenia, which has several powers like the
approval of the judge list, appointment of judges, disciplinary
punishment of judges, is not, in fact, an independent judicial body
because it is the president of Armenia who makes the final decision
on all these issues,” Ghukasian told conference participants.
Sargsyan is on record as being committed to holding a free-and-fair
vote next spring. In a June 22 speech to the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe, Sargsyan stated that “free and fair elections
are not enough. … It is also necessary that the elections be
perceived as such by the public.”
Conference participants expressed concern that past electoral
irregularities – combined with the government’s inability to
aggressively address pressing economic and social issues, and the
opposition’s difficulties in offering tangible alternatives – has
alienated Armenia’s electorate. Apathy could translate into low voter
turnout in the spring.
Fifty-five percent of the 1,650 voters polled recently by sociologist
Aharon Adibekian expressed interest in the parliamentary vote;
30 percent expressed no interest. “I am surprised,” Adibekian told
EurasiaNet.org. “I was expecting a worse result.”
A major challenge for civil society groups will be to find ways to get
citizens engaged with the political process. “Democratic development”
is “a process of growth, setbacks, lessons learned, improvements and
the ability to be self-critical.” Alex Sardar, chief of party for
Counterpart International Armenia.
Editor’s note: Marianna Grigoryan is a freelance reporter based in
Yerevan and editor of MediaLab.am.