Life in Armenia appears “calm and fully under control”

Diverging opinions highlight divisions in society

by Armenian Reporter staff

Published: Saturday March 15, 2008

Yerevan - Armenia's Constitutional Court on March 8 turned down two petitions to declare the February 19 presidential elections null and void (see story on page A5), and President Robert Kocharian on March 13 revised restrictions on the media under his order declaring a 20-day state of emergency in the capital, as relative calm continued in the country.

The presence of tanks and army personnel has dwindled; they remain now only in Freedom Square and in Republic Square, although internal security forces continue to watch over the bridges and roads into Yerevan. Looted stores have been repaired, burned cars have been removed, and life seemingly is back to normal.

The International Election Observation Mission (IEOM) issued its third interim report, in which it noted president-elect Serge Sargsian's offer to collaborate with the other candidates, and reported shortcomings in the process of conducting recounts and handling complaints on Election Day. It noted that its report should be read in conjunction with its earlier report in which it found that the election "was administered mostly in line with OSCE and Council of Europe standards."

Arrests and the issuance of warrants for individuals implicated in the March 1 riots continued.

The president of the republic lifted some of the provisions of the state of emergency he had declared on March 1, including the temporary interruption of activities of political parties and other public organizations.

On March 13 he also signed a decree revising the limitation on the media which was also implemented in connection with the state of emergency. The revised order bans "the dissemination of obvious lies, or reports destabilizing the situation, or calls for participation in unsanctioned rallies by mass media and in other ways." The original order had required mass media to disseminate only "official reports" on "state and domestic political issues." These limitations were lifted because the president believed that "the situation in Yerevan is calm and fully under control."

International pressure on the president to lift the state of emergency also continued - as did pressure on presidential hopeful Levon Ter-Petrossian to come to term with his defeat at the polls. John Prescott (United Kingdom), rapporteur for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) on the Armenian elections, was in Yerevan for meetings with the authorities. He called upon all sides to show restraint, respect, and avoid actions that could make matters worse. According to Arminfo, Mr. Prescott said, "This is essential if we are to move to a genuine and open dialogue. I am convinced that a solution can be found to the present difficulties. This requires the recognition by all of the authority of the Constitutional Court and its ruling on the outcome of the Presidential election. It also requires the removal of the state of emergency and the restoration of individual human rights and freedoms, including political rights, as well as the establishment of an independent inquiry into the circumstances of the events of March 1 that tragically led to the death of 8 individuals and left many injured."

The Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammarberg, was also in Yerevan for a three-day visit. Mr. Hammarberg met with Armenian officials, including the president, prime minister, speaker of the National Assembly, and the foreign minister to ensure the protection of fundamental human rights in the country. "I am concerned about the human rights situation in Armenia and the consequences of the declaration of the state of emergency," he said. "It is urgent to restore a situation where the activities of the media, political parties, and non­governmental organizations are not hindered." Mr. Hammarberg visited prisons, police stations, and hospitals to meet with people affected by the events of March 1-2.

On March 13 the Presidency of the European Union issued a statement on the situation in Armenia. In the statement, the presidency expresses concern and calls upon the Armenian authorities to lift the state of emergency and release any citizens detained for their political activities; it recommends an independent investigation into the events of March 1. "The Presidency calls on both the Armenian authorities and opposition leaders to take all necessary steps to reduce tensions, and to refrain from any action that could exacerbate the current situation.

"The Presidency reiterates its call to all political parties to engage faithfully in political dialogue based on mutual understanding and trust, which is the only way to arrive at a political solution to the present situation."
The calm before the storm?

The situation in Armenia does indeed seem to be "calm and fully under control," as the Armenian president had stated. What will happen after the state of emergency is lifted? The Armenian Reporter met with two political scientists whose opinions differ about why the country arrived at a state of emergency and where the country is heading.

Edgar Vardanyan is an activist and political scientist who works as a project coordinator for the Institute for Democracy and Human Rights, a nongovernmental organization in Yerevan. He teaches at the Eurasia University. He said he believed that injustice, lawlessness, and undemocratic governance are what caused the turmoil in the country, and that after March 1 the movement led by Mr. Ter-Petrossian has only gained momentum.

Shushan Khatlamajyan, a political scientist, is the coordinator of the Institute for Civil Society and Regional Development. She said she believed there are forces whose goal was to ruin Armenia's international reputation and weaken its diplomatic position. For them, she said, the goal is to have Armenia seen as an unstable dictatorship. "If that was the real goal of this political force, then we can state that their program was realized 100 percent," said Ms. Khatlamajyan.

Mr. Vardanyan believes that the roots of the country's political tensions are intertwined with the nation's history. "We believed that the transformation from authoritarian rule to democracy would be automatic," said Mr. Vardanyan. Most political scientists in the country thought that it would be a natural evolution toward democracy, but they were mistaken, he said. "We were in a totalitarian state and then we moved to independence; we held elections, made changes to the country's constitution. We thought this meant we were going toward democracy," he said.

Holding elections vs. being a democracy

Ms. Khatlamajyan said that there are experts who claim that Armenia is no longer in a stage of transition from authoritarian rule to democracy. "I do not know where this idea comes from, but it seems to me that Armenia will experience a period of transition for a long time to come," she said. "Our country is undergoing changes in many different areas and a lot of things are possible along the way. The perceptions of these processes in society develop in their own particular way. For several years we believed that everything was calm, regardless of the obvious discontent. People understand that these changes cannot be made in a short period of time."

According to Mr. Vardanyan, Armenia has gone through many stages since independence. The first stage was extreme, wild liberalism, mostly in the economic sector, which created a new kind of centralized government that was cut off from society. Although this was no longer the Soviet authoritarian power, it was very similar. This led to the polarization of society, apathy, and disappointment. "Then there was an attempt to look for new leaders, new officials, who could bring us out of that severe economic situation - and because we didn't appreciate that political pluralism which was given to us at the time, we went in search of new leaders, new authorities," Mr. Vardanyan said. People turned back to the old Soviet leadership by bringing Karen Demirchian back into power (as speaker of the National Assembly in May 1999). And military authority was represented during that time period in the person of Vazgen Sarkisian (who became prime minister). They were both killed on October 27, 1999. "These two men were acceptable because they were outside of the bureaucracy. They were patriotic, had done good things, and had a following in some circles. And there was the consolidation of these two elements."

The country then began seeing wealthy business interests enter politics to exercise influence on society. This is where the fusion of politics and the different branches of the economy took place. "This agreement created a new system of politics where oligarchs have an increasingly large influence on political directions," Mr. Vardanyan said.

After the 2003 parliamentary elections, there was an attempt at a political coalition comprised of the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), the Country of Laws Party (OEK) and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF). "These political forces, which [together] had the confidence of a large portion of society, used normal political mechanisms to distribute and take control of all branches of government," he said. But this mechanism cloaked a mutually beneficial arrangement on the part of big business and officials, Mr. Vardanyan said.

Ms. Khatlamajyan said that everything is possible when there is a large segment of the population who have a lot of complaints: a lack of social injustice, personal dissatisfaction, corruption, and manifestations of oligarchy. "In such conditions, which are either political or not, forces will be found that can organize that discontent in a way profitable to them. And here we enter a sphere of politically applied technologies or methods," she said.

The Justice Alliance of opposition forces in 2003-7 used methods that were different from those used in Armenia in the last several weeks, she said. There was discontent, political forces formed alliances, and there even was the political will to achieve certain results. "The leaders [of the Justice Alliance] seemed willing and prepared for a lot, but they had a more stable moral barrier. They were not ready to lead the discontented segment of society along the paths of dark developments, of the sort that have happened today," Ms. Khatlamajyan said.

Mr. Vardanyan said that the presidential election of February 2008 created a chance for a new theater of political maneuvering. "The problem was that the foundation of the country was corrupt, based on clans, and unconstitutional. There needed to be a serious fundamental systemic change in the country's governance," he opined. "What Levon Ter-Petrossian was proposing was very simple and primitive: the creation of a legal state, adhering to the constitution, fighting corruption. A new system needed to be created. People began thinking about what he was saying."

Mr. Ter-Petrossian was the only candidate who was able to articulate all that "the people" wanted to hear and wasn't willing to compromise, Mr. Vardanyan said. Many people joined Mr. Ter-Petrossian not because they supported him personally, but because they wanted to see change.

The charisma of the square

According to Ms. Khatlamajyan, the rise of Mr. Ter-Petrossian was not spontaneous. "In my opinion, a very serious group of professionals gathered and worked on it, and I think that they might have had intellectual assistance from abroad. They developed a strategy on how to engage the undecided and discontented people," she said. It was decided to focus Mr. Ter-Petrossian's campaign not on the general public, but to address and target certain groups within society. They then presented their ideas and made promises. As an example, she talks about the youth and the appeal of slogans about freedom to young people.

At the same time, Mr. Ter-Petrossian realized that gathering people in Freedom Square - the site of the gatherings of the Karabakh movement 20 years ago - was very powerful. "The square has its own charisma. I think that a political force that would constantly organize meetings in Freedom Square and address the people with calls, appealing not to their conscious or logic, but to their emotions and subconscious would be successful," Ms. Khatlamajyan said.

Instead of representing facts, Mr. Ter-Petrossian used another very powerful tool, she said. He began to spread rumors that pulled on people's emotional strings. "For example, the rumors that on March 1, a child and a pregnant woman were killed by the police. This was a tactic that Levon Ter-Petrossian used while never talking about his program in a rational way," she said.

"I believe that Bolshevik methods and ideas still have a big influence not only in Russia, but also in Armenia," she said. "They left their mark on our subconscious and our political views. It is easy to trick our voters with this Bolshevik, revolutionary rhetoric," she said. She cited Mr. Ter-Petrossian's insistence that he spoke for the people and that "Whoever is not with us is against us," and "Whoever is not with us is scum."

Mr. Ter-Petrossian's camp also used the Big Lie as a method. The bigger the lie, and the more often it is repeated, the more people believe it, Ms. Khatlamajyan said.

Mr. Vardanyan said that after the election on February 19, Mr. Ter-Petrossian's movement gained strength and momentum because many people were shocked by Mr. Sargsian's first-round win.

"A political crisis began when people in high-ranking positions began defecting to Mr. Ter-Petrossian's side," he said. "The movement was halted, but it's only temporary and superficial," he said. When the state of emergency is lifted, the movement will once again continue, he predicted. Asked how Mr. Ter-Petrossian can speak of "restoring" legality and constitutional rule but reject the verdict of the Constitutional Court, Mr. Vardanyan questioned the legitimacy of the court's authority.

Mr. Vardanyan also believes the restrictions on the freedom of the press created more problems for officials in power. There is an intensive social networking taking place among the supporters of Mr. Ter-Petrossian. "We are now in a latent stage. Once freedoms are reinstated, there will be a resurgence of the movement," he said.

In search of political will

Ms. Khatlamajyan recalled that the Armenian National Movement (ANM) employed similar political methods to those now being used by Levon Ter-Petrossian. "The ANM received an extremely small percent of the vote during the [2007] parliamentary elections. This time they realized that the ANM brand doesn't have much of a rating and tried to leave their name out of Levon Ter-Petrossian's campaign," she said. The reason that the former president was able to rally support and have an effect on people is because a part of the population didn't see any other political force that could realize their desires and then "there is this force that promises to solve all their problems in a very short time, so they go after it."

The forces of democracy must win over dictatorship, Mr. Vardanyan said. "Don't forget, people are more committed now and they are ready to come forward with eyewitness accounts and facts about the election and the post­election period. They will be presenting their position to the international community, who will demand answers."

Ms. Khatlamajyan stated that the authorities know what they need to do. "It is another matter whether or not they will be able to find the political will to destroy the existing defective structures. This is the most difficult part of the equation. When a ruling pyramid, based on such informal relations, is formed, it is very difficult to destroy it. But to leave it as it is would be fatal for authorities," she said.