Extend an invitation to Washington

Published: Saturday February 23, 2008

Turnout was exceptionally high, at 70 percent, for Armenia's presidential election on February 19. It indicated that Armenia has a motivated electorate that believed its vote would make a difference.

According to the preliminary results announced by the Central Electoral Commission, Prime Minister Serge Sargsian won 52.86 percent of the vote and was elected as Armenia's next president. Former president Levon Ter-Petrossian came in second with 21.51 percent of the vote, and former speaker Artur Baghdasarian came in third with 16.67 percent.

In choosing the prime minister over the other candidates, the citizens of Armenia opted for stability and for continuing the policies pursued over the last 10 years by President Robert Kocharian, who is stepping down.

Mr. Sargsian, who served for 8½ years as defense minister (under Mr. Ter-Petrossian during the Karabakh war, and again from 2000 to 2007), has led the modernization and reform of Armenia's defense forces and Armenia's cooperation with NATO, while maintaining excellent relations with Russia.

He has taken the position that Turkey's accession to the European Union could be a good thing - making Armenia and the EU neighbors - while at the same time standing firm on the importance of the recognition by Turkey of the Armenian Genocide.

On the Karabakh conflict, Mr. Sargsian's position appears to be much the same as that of Mr. Kocharian: Armenians can make concessions in exchange for an international status that would formalize the nonsubordination of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic to Azerbaijan; Karabakh would continue to have a direct overland border with Armenia and international guarantees of its security.

Under the Constitution, social and economic policy will be the realm of the new prime minister and government rather than the president. But the president appoints the prosecutor general and has oversight of the judiciary. As such, the new president will have the opportunity to take decisive steps against official corruption and toward the establishment of a level playing field for all citizens and for businesses. Mr. Sargsian has declared that he "will strive for a new Armenian mindset that will not tolerate the phenomenon of corruption. Personal contacts must not be the basis of our system and whoever promotes bribery will not be considered as a comrade, friend, or fellow party member but as a law breaker." As president, he will have the opportunity to put this mindset into action.

***

Had Mr. Sargsian received 46,750 fewer votes than shown in the preliminary count, he would have had to face whoever came in second place in a runoff election. Because the margin is narrow, concerns about election fraud take on additional urgency.

It is therefore gratifying to learn the conclusion of the 316 trained observers from the International Election Observation Mission, that the election "was administered mostly in line with OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards. The high-State authorities made genuine efforts to address shortcomings noted in previous elections."

At the same time, however, the observation mission saw problems. For example, it assessed the count as "bad" or "very bad" in some 16 percent of the polling stations visited. Recounts are going on in specific precincts, and that is a good thing.

In addition, there were reports and rumors of assault, intimidation, and bribery throughout Election Day. Though the observers confirm that voting was calm and normal in some 90 percent of voting precincts, any reports of violations remain cause for concern. The police are investigating some 10 cases. Drawing on the testimony of observers, candidate proxies, and electoral commission members they can and should investigate additional cases.

That said, there are reasons to have confidence in the overall outcome.

First, there are numerous safeguards in place to ensure electoral fairness. Each polling station is run by a commission that includes appointees of parties that have blocs in parliament. Thus, representatives of the supporters of each major candidate participate in running each polling place. In addition, candidates can appoint proxies to observe preparations, voting, and tallying in each polling place. And observers and the media have access to all polling places (a right that Reporter editors and reporters in Armenia took full advantage of). The same is true of membership in and access to the district and central electoral commissions.

It's quite a challenge under these circumstances to engage in fraud on a massive scale. True, some people can be bought or intimidated in some places; but the proportion of the vote that went to each candidate was fairly consistent across the country.

Second, reputable pollsters carried out exit polling on Election Day and the results were consistent with the preliminary tally released by the Central Electoral Commission. They were also consistent with the Yerevan polling done earlier in February by a pro-Ter-Petrossian newspaper.

***

Mr. Ter-Petrossian and Mr. Baghdasarian have refused to concede defeat, as is their right. Mr. Baghdasarian has demanded recounts, which is appropriate.

Mr. Ter-Petrossian is demanding a brand-new election based on the claim that perhaps half a million illegitimate votes were cast, depriving him of his victory. He has gathered tens of thousands of his supporters in the streets to put pressure on the government to accede to his demand. Some senior officials and members of parliament have joined him. It remains to be seen whether more will.

If the movement in the street were a movement for free, fair, and transparent elections, it would be a movement to join: there are few things more heartening than people standing up to demand their rights. Insofar as the aim is to give Mr. Ter-Petrossian a victory that he did not garner at the polls, it is not a productive movement. On the contrary, it is divisive and generates a kind of rancor and hatred that is likely to far outlast the movement itself.