UNDERSTANDING ARMENIA: TRANSLATING INDEPENDENCE INTO DEVELOPMENT
Michael Santo
HULIQ.com, SC
Oct 10 2011
Armenia recently celebrated its 20 anniversary of independencebut
good words and wishes have already been toasted, the professional
community should pass the hangover and make assessments about the
two decades of sovereign political existence of the Third Republic.
As in all other post-Soviet entities, Armenia has had a revolutionary
path of crafting both independence and laying sustainable grounds for
development, in the words of the UN Charter — through “the scourge
of war” imposed by neighboring Azerbaijan. As a matter of fact, all
three acting administrations, being equally criticized and cheered,
met different and difficult challenges in their service.
A brief analysis of three presidencies, hardly ever made so far,
shall give proper understanding about the modern history and current
political trends of this tiny mountainous country in South Caucasus.
In sum, we will argue that all three presidential administrations
and first 20 years of independence gave birth to three different
ideological perspectives of development. Despite the fact that some
experts, mostly due to partisan affiliations, are charmed by their
“own idol” and ignorant of others, I will maintain that past 20 years
should be assessed as an integrated whole. Though citizens have the
final vote, it should be firmly established that all three presidents
of Armenia, as in any country, contributed to its development at the
extremes of their mind and abilities.
First presidency (1991-1998)
The first President – Levon Ter-Petrossian – is widely believed to be
elected in the only and truly democratic election of 1991, affected
by the nation-wide euphoria of independence. In fact, the nation voted
not for Ter-Petrossian as a politician, but instead voted for the man
who, as a leader himself, represented independence with his struggle.
The epoch of President Ter-Petrossian showed that the newly emerging
Armenian statehood was able to win a war and was strong enough to
meet the challenge of regime transformation – from command economy
to emerging liberalism. However, neither the nation itself nor
the leaders were prepared to live in democracy and very soon the
euphoria was replaced with the first seeds of “command liberalism”,
resulting in an illegitimate privatization process as elsewhere in
post Soviet republics.
Firstly, Ter-Petrossian was advocating a liberal statehood and
“democratic island” in South Caucasus – with various degrees
of practical success. During his first term until 1996, despite
galvanizing de facto confrontation withs neighboring Azerbaijan and
imposed blockade, his administration indeed demonstrated certain
progress. But in the mid-1990s the so-called Vietnam syndrome
broke grounds in the Armenian political landscape, as those
freedom-fighters returning from Karabakh war fields “demanded” own
place in the political and economic landscape. Having no other option
to reintegrate these mighty individuals into civil life, the ruling
regime surrendered at the expense of democratic development.
This was well demonstrated at an interview by former almighty “minister
of everything” (now on Interpol’s “most wanted” list) Vano Siradeghyan,
where he shared memoirs about 1996 presidential campaign.
Despite public pressure and street rallies, Siradeghyan testified,
together with Defense minister Vazgen Sargsyan (a hero of Karabakh
war, later prime-minister, killed in the 1999 Parliament shootings)
a decision was made not to go for a second tour of elections, as “the
president was tired and not ready to contest”. Hence, the second term
of President Ter-Petrossian may be well portrayed as a “rule of power”,
which would in two years time (early 1998) abandon him and crown
newly appointed prime-minister Robert Kocharian as a next President.
This moment of early 1998 should be now named as a turning focal
point, where the development ideology of Ter-Petrossian was rejected
by the ruling elite and, by and large, within the society. As a wise
politician, he decided to step down without further adieu.
Second presidency (1998-2008)
The decade of second President Robert Kocharian proved that Armenia
can recover its economy through systematic convergence with the
Diaspora. President Kocharian, being erected by same power circles,
was heavily dependent on them up to late 2000. At some point in 2001,
Kocharian started to advocate a new wisdom: Armenia should become
the “most organized state” in South Caucasus, which was a nice way
to say that financial and major economic influence in the country
must be put under strict controls of the executive. The elections
of 2003 reestablished this system. At that moment there had been
certain illusions that “an organized state” was gradually becoming
a successful and uncontested political reality. With no serious
opposition on the ground, sky-rocketing hydrocarbon prices in the
international market and, based on this, huge Diaspora remittances
(mainly from Russia, also from France and US) and investment boom
into real economy contributed to the illusion that the society is
fond of the much-advertised “stability”.
However, the “lifeblood injections” of Diaspora-generated remittances
— the hidden success story of past decade — dramatically fell with
the first signs of the global economic downturn which day-for-day
practically coincided with the inauguration of the third, incumbent
President Serzh Sargsyan. On another side, the re-birth of charismatic
and, in the words of Wikileaks cables -the “willy” Ter-Petrossian as
a so-called radical opposition leader accelerated a process of public
resentment and protest. The aftermath of strong political struggle
between the ruling elite and Ter-Petrossian camp had been the endless
street rallies and unfortunate death of ten people in after-election
street clashes of March 2008.
Undoubtedly, as a strong politician and a leader, it should have been
hard (not to say a personal tragedy) for President Kocharian to pass
on his legacy through a “state of emergency”, but he assured he was
not going to stay as a youngest “pensioner”. Accordingly, his unfading
political activism ever since raises unanswered questions.
Third presidency (since April 2008)
Although the third Presidency was a product of power-transfer within
same ruling elite, but the new president Serzh Sargsyan from Day
One initialed a different development ideology. Just to mention
the rapprochement initiative with neighboring Turkey. Confronting
an uneasy situation, the chief challenge of third Presidency has
been to show whether or not Armenia (as a state) is fundamentally
and sustainably able to develop. Troubled by an economic recession
period, this will by no means become a hotspot discourse for 2012
parliamentary election campaign.
Indeed, President Sargsyan used to face tremendous challenges, both
internally and externally. The opposition is much more consolidated
than even before the 2007 general elections, largely due to political
hyper-activism of ex-president Ter-Petrossian. Externally, the August
war of 2008 was a “stress test” for the heavily import-dependent
Armenian economy. However, the incumbent administration has managed
to develop full-range support from all major power centers –
from Washington to Brussels and Moscow, mainly for proactive
and ground-breaking foreign policy endeavors. Substantially, on
Nagrono-Karabakh his team enjoys empathy of foreign partners, while
in Armenian-Turkish rapprochement track Sargsyan managed to handle
both domestic unhappiness and the opposition of Diaspora groups.
The newly emerging President Sargsyan demonstrated that he is a man
of political compromise. Still in 2008, even the forgotten political
figures, who did have no public influence, were organized in somewhat
uncertain Public Chamber – a localization of Russian experience
itself. In the year of 2011 an unprecedented move shook the grounds
of domestic politics, aimed at “consolidating the peace”. The main
opposition suddenly agreed to establish a civilized dialogue channel
with the government, which for the most observers, perhaps, once
more illustrated the fundamental difference of the current regime in
contrast of its predecessors.
However, unlike the situation in foreign policy, President Sargsyan is
still unable to solicit support of a common citizen in domestic economy
endeavors. For the latter, the inflation and economic downturn are
still a daily challenge with only two possible scenarios – either the
acting team of economists, largely known as a team of intellectuals,
should be dismissed as an oblation to the public opinion, or a miracle
should be prayed for.
What next?
In his 3rd year, President Sargsyan is unalternatively tasked to
perform another major and necessarily legitimate reshuffle in the
system of power. But this would be only the “means” of his alleged
paradigm shift, not the “ends”. The “ends” should yet be a gradual
evolution of the quality of public authority.
Being the leader of the acting parliament majority – the Republican
party – President Sargsyan firmly advocates that the next parliament
(elections scheduled for May 2012) should only include “bright
minds” and well educated individuals, never mentioned in publicly
teased unlawful behavior. To make this a reality, a law on lobbying
activities shall be adopted by February 2012 the latest – in order
to calm down initial stress from local business tycoons.
The recent surprise has been the establishment of presidential
Economic Reform Chamber, headed by prime-minister Tigran Sargsian
(no relation to the president), to reform and implement better
state regulation laws and strategy that so far hinders sustainable
economic development. Re-emerging from a political crisis of 2008,
the current administration now has the most challenging alternative –
“win new hearts” or surrender to main adversaries as a natural flow of
alleged political inconsistency. The Economic Reform Chamber seems to
be a last chance to the acting government to show performance before
accelerating 2012 political campaign.
But for these days, the streets of this tiny country in Southern
Caucasus are filled with festive atmosphere, and hardly anyone thinks
of politics. The hard times are yet to come in late October, when
the 2012 parliamentary elections campaign will kick off by inertia.
Written by Hovhannes Nikoghosyan, PhD, the Chair of Political
Processes and Technologies Dep’t at Russian-Armenian (Slavonic)
University, Yerevan.
http://www.huliq.com/3257/understanding-armenia-translating-independence-development