Democracy in Armenia

Published: Saturday March 01, 2008

The weeks leading to Armenia's February 19 presidential elections were a time of passionate debate and engagement in the homeland. Citizens of Armenia saw nine candidates articulate their positions on national television, on the radio, in print media, online, and in gatherings in every corner of the country.

Some candidates spoke about their vision for the future. Among those were Prime Minister Serge Sargsian, former speaker Artur Baghdasarian, and the ARF's Vahan Hovhannesian. Others engaged in fierce criticism: former president Levon Ter-Petrossian attacked President Robert Kocharian and Mr. Sargsian; candidate Artashes Geghamian and others went after Mr. Ter-Petrossian.

Most people we spoke to in Armenia in the early phase of the election contest expected Mr. Sargsian to obtain a plurality of the vote, after which he would face the second-place candidate - likely Mr. Ter-Petrossian, Mr. Baghdasarian, or Mr. Hovhannesian - in a second round.

As Election Day came closer, Mr. Ter-Petrossian's support among opposition voters began visibly to increase: more people showed up for his rallies; the Heritage Party endorsed him; and polls showed him in second place. Meanwhile, our interviews with voters indicated that the prospect of a second Ter-Petrossian presidency increased the support enjoyed by Mr. Sargsian. Undecided voters - and voters who were leaning toward candidates who were unlikely to win - tilted toward Mr. Sargsian, who represented stability and a predictable foreign policy and was not Mr. Ter-Petrossian.

Turnout was high on Election Day. After the polls, reports from the precincts began to trickle in. It began to emerge that Mr. Sargsian had won outright, with 53 percent of the vote.

Did the outcome reflect the will of the electorate? All eyes were now on the Western observers. They noted problems, but they found that Armenia's elections were an improvement over the May 2007 parliamentary elections, which were, in turn, an improvement over past elections. In sum, they were "mostly" in line with Western standards.

The various camps listened to the reports coming in from their people in the field: electoral commission members, proxies, and organizers. Mr. Baghdasarian's campaign decided to demand a recount in certain precincts, where they had information about problems. Mr. Hovhannesian's team decided to accept the results, while calling for certain improvements in the process for the future.

But Mr. Ter-Petrossian declined to concede his defeat at the polls. He called on supporters to gather in Freedom Square and stay there until he was inaugurated as president. Tens of thousands of Armenians have joined him in his round-the-clock rally.

***

In the face of uncertainty about what might happen next, the mood in the country in the 10 days that have elapsed since the election has been grim.

Except, perhaps, in Freedom Square. One cannot help but be moved by the sight of people from every walk of life gathered, making their demands peacefully but resolutely. The last few nights have been cold in Yerevan, and hundreds of people are spending them dancing on Freedom Square.

In mobilizing this mass of people - in evoking their idealism and in raising their hopes - Mr. Ter-Petrossian has taken on a heavy responsibility. Will he be able to deliver what his supporters hope for: a more democratic Armenia with a more level playing field?

Mr. Ter-Petrossian has tapped into a rich vein of popular discontent and raw anger. With his encouragement, this anger is expressed in unworthy terms: dividing the Armenian people into "us" and "scum"; "the people" and "traitors"; "Armenians" and "the Karabakh clan." This is troubling, to say the least.

The central premise of Mr. Ter-Petrossian's campaign is that he was actually elected president by 60 to 65 percent of the electorate, with Mr. Sargsian in fourth place. By making the goal of the campaign the elevation of Mr. Ter-Petrossian to an office to which he was not elected, Mr. Ter-Petrossian makes it difficult for other forces to join the campaign, and for a compromise, win-win solution to emerge.

In fact, it has had the opposite effect. On Friday, Mr. Baghdasarian agreed to bring his Country of Laws Party into a coalition with Mr. Sargsian's Republican Party and the Prosperous Armenia Party. Meanwhile, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, which has indicated a desire to quit its power-sharing agreement with the Republican and Prosperous Armenia coalition, has been reluctant to do so outright, lest it be perceived as part of Mr. Ter-Petrossian's camp.

The net effect, so far, has been to leave Armenia's National Assembly with a smaller opposition than it has had for the last nine months.

***

The initial tactic of the post-election campaign was to encourage mass defections from the machinery of government. In the first few days a handful of senior civil servants and diplomats joined the Ter-Petrossian camp. Mr. Ter-Petrossian expressed confidence that the commanders of the armed forces and the police will join him too. To ask civil servants, diplomats, and above all people in uniform to violate the laws on political neutrality and engage in mutiny is not a route open to responsible leaders - especially in a country that faces hostile neighbors to the east and west. Fortunately, that tactic failed.

To their credit, Mr. Ter-Petrossian and his followers have studiously avoided violence. And to his credit, Mr. Kocharian has resisted any temptation he may have had to use force against peaceful protestors.

Mr. Ter-Petrossian has applied to the Constitutional Court to order new elections. At press time, we had not seen the evidence of fraud offered to support the application. In view of the conclusions of the observers and the other camps, however, it appears unlikely that evidence of massive fraud exists and that the application can succeed.
Where will this all end? We can hope that it will not end with the complete marginalization of the 350,000-odd voters who supported Mr. Ter-Petrossian. On their behalf, and on Armenia's, he must start to tone down the divisive rhetoric and look toward constructive steps toward political reconciliation.