Aram Sarkisyan, Artashes Geghamian and Stepan Demirchian, Liberty Square, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2004

RFE/RL reports that several opposition party leaders are once again holding negotiations on possible electoral alliances ahead of the May vote. Deja vu, and not least because we always get this before they all accuse each other of being bought off in some way by the authorities. Artashes Geghamian, who urged his supporters to boycott the second round of the 2003 presidential election, is one of the most notorious in terms of being mentioned in this regard so it’s ironic to see his name again being linked to Stepan Demirchian, Kocharian’s main rival back then.

“There have been some discussions on such possibility with the People’s Party,” he said. “We have primarily talked about doing everything to ensure that the upcoming elections are democratic and preventing falsifications.”

Geghamian declined to give further details, and HZhK leaders could not be immediately reached for comment.

Geghamian and Demirchian have had an uneasy personal rapport, falling out during the presidential elections of February-March 2003 when they were President Robert Kocharian’s main opposition challengers. The two men joined forces a year later to lead an ill-fated opposition attempt to force Kocharian into resignation with a campaign of street protests. The failure of the campaign opened a new rift between them.

It seemed to have deepened in May last year when Demirchian accused the outspoken AMK leader of lying about his late father and the HZhK’s founder, Karen Demirchian. Geghamian was quick to try to mend fences with his Demirchian at the time. It is not yet clear if the two leaders are prepared to again have another, more radical oppositionist, Aram Sarkisian of the Hanrapetutyun (Republic) party, on board.

Another possible opposition alliance being mentioned is one formed by the former Speaker of Parliament, Artur Baghdasarian, and former Commander of the Nagorno Karabakh armed forces, Samuel Babayan. Both men are prominent, and some would even say notorious. Baghdasarian might be popular in European circles, for example, but is generally considered popularist, while Babayan was termed “The Strong Man of Karabakh” when he was in control of the military and controversially, most of the local economy.

Nevertheless, both men have some credentials that might win over the hearts and minds of some voters. Baghdasarian, for example, fell foul of Kocharian when he spoke out against crackdowns on the opposition in 2004 and after he suggested the 2003 presidential election was falsified, while Babayan was sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly masterminding a failed assassination attempt on the NKR President’s life. He was later released, although his pardon was only partial,.

Over at Armenia Blog, Rhyne offers his own opinion on news of all of these strange bedfellows.

I really hope these alliances, if they pan through, actually enhance the democratic process and not act as a sort of cartel over the people’s lives. Armenia deserves a true democracy, if such a thing exists.

Meanwhile, Observer at What Democracy Means and Blogrel offers his own opinion on democracy in Armenia and how it compares with my native England, where he’s currently studying. Actually, it’s good that we’re getting this kind of commentary made now in the hope that some discussion can be initiated. Hopefully, more bloggers will weigh in with their opinions over the next few months. Until then, well done, Observer. I think we need such debate.

As I come to compare it with the UK which doesn’t even have a constitution and US - where no direct electoral right is practiced for the Presidential elecitons, I can assure everyone here, that it’s not the legislation that’s causing the problems, but rather the unwillingness of the authorities to fully and effectively practice those laws and legislative preconditions to the benefit of democratic development in the country and in the inability of the people of Armenia to claim their constitutional rights and hold the authorities accountable. One of the biggest problems is that of good governence and the rule of law: laws are practiced selectively, or not practiced at all if such practice would mean limitations or enhanced accountability and transparency in the work of the authorities. On the surface elections, legislation seem to be satisfactory - but the reality is: the Armenian people are essentially deprived of their right to practice direct voting as a means for changing the government and thus having any influence on formulating the political agenda in the country.

A firm control over the major media outlets in the country, exploitation of administrative resources during the elections to guarantee favourable results for the incumbent government have become an increasingly threatening trait of the Armenian democracy - democratic immitation.

The existence of the powerful Armenian Diaspora abroad doesn’t help much either. On the contrary, the desire of the Diaspora to protect “their country” and show it from the more favourable perspective in the eyes of the leading world powers: US, France, etc. contributes to the problems of democracy back home.

I don’t have a solution to these problems, NOBODY DOES!

The Armenian people can’t count on the assistance of the international community for ensuring their electoral rights and their rights to participate in the governing of their own country. The Armenian people can only count on themselves, and I come here with the hope to see how is it that the people of the UK are able to so effectively govern their country - even without a “proper” Constitution!!!

I’m particularly happy to see mention of the Diaspora in terms of contributing to the idea of democracy or not in Armenia. This has been an issue that I’ve also raised on this blog through posting an excellent quote by RFE/RL’s Emil Danielyan as well as through a series of interviews on the possible role ethnic Armenians can play in democratization here with Raffi Hohannisian, Asbed Kotchikian and Jeffrey Tufenkian. Ironically, to prove Observer right, I received threats from a few Diasporans as a result of what Kotchikian said.

Many among the Diaspora might live in democratic countries, and as individuals they might consider themselves democratic, but as a collective mass, I don’t think that democracy is practiced in any institution. It is not practiced in the church, in political organizations or in other groups. So, we have this dichotomy. How can the Diaspora bring democracy to Armenia when the Diaspora itself is not democratic?

Emil’s quote was more specific.

The Diaspora influence on Armenia’s political, economic and social life has been marginal. They have rightly poured millions of dollars worth of assistance into this country since independence, but have done little to promote Armenia’s democratization and make its post-Soviet rulers respect human and civil rights. For example, the only Diaspora reaction to the dramatic events in Yerevan was a toothless statement by an Armenian-American lobbying group calling for “dialogue” between the two rival camps.

Many Diaspora Armenians fail to understand that their historical homeland can not become prosperous without having free elections, freedom of speech, an independent judiciary and things like that. They often dismiss international criticisms of the Armenian authorities’ human rights record as being part of a U.S. ploy to make us stop campaigning for international recognition of the 1915 genocide of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and become dependent on modern-day Turkey.

For them, the recipe for development is nationalism, not liberal democracy. The Diaspora organizations in the US and Europe must stop ignoring this country’s fundamental flaws.

Anyway, Observer points out that the authorities here lack the political will to hold democratic elections Successive governments and presidents have come to power through illegalities and falsification and they’re not about to lose all they gained along the way by changing that approach now. However, we could at least hope for some slight improvements based on Armenia’s international obligations, power struggles within the elite, more checks and balances, and most importantly, the willingness of the population to protect their votes.

However, as we saw in the 2003 presidential election, that wasn’t there although 40,000 people did take to the streets, and for the November 2005 referendum to amend the constitution, apathy became the most prevalent reality of the democratic process in Armenia. Unfortunately, desperation and cynicism now appears to be taking over as the driving force with many voters accepting what can be considered vote bribes throughout the country. RFE/RL has more on that, and Gagik Tsarukian’s Prosperous Armenia party, as well.

A rapidly growing party led by Armenia’s wealthiest government-connected businessman claimed on Wednesday to have already recruited a staggering 370,000 members, more than all other political groups taken together.

[…]

Prosperous Armenia was unveiled a year ago and has since been gaining ground in the Armenian political arena by capitalizing on Tsarukian’s substantial financial resources and increasingly evident populist appeal. The party stepped up last fall its preparations for the upcoming polls with publicity stunts such as provision of agricultural aid, free medical care and other supposedly public services to low-income people across the country. Critics, among them some leaders of Armenia’s two main governing parties, regard this as a massive vote buying operation.

Another party source, who asked not to be identified, claimed that Prosperous Armenia now boasts as many as 420,000 members, or nearly one fifth of the country’s 2.3 million eligible voters. By comparison, the main governing Republican Party (HHK) claims to have up to 40,000 members.

[…]

Vartanian also insisted that Tsarukian’s “benevolent actions” are not vote bribes. The tycoon, who is close to President Robert Kocharian, enjoys “great authority among the people,” he said.

Kocharian made a similar point in a televised interview last month, saying that many Armenians now believe that Tsarukian and his party “think about the people.” The remarks reinforced the widely held belief that the emergence of Prosperous Armenia is part of Kocharian’s strategy of retaining a key role in government after his anticipated resignation in 2008.

For sure, Tsarukian (a.k.a. Dodi Gago) is the man to watch for 2007. Indeed, the recent publication of a “Top Ten of Armenia’s Richest Men” is widely attributed to him. The list, which also features key Government officials, was published by a new magazine unveiled as the Armenian version of Forbes. However, as with many shops and brand names here, all is not as it seems, and RFE/RL reports that copyright lawyers are now involved.

A new magazine which claims to be the Armenian version of “Forbes” has no connection with the renowned U.S. business publication and is using its name illegally, a copyright lawyer said on Tuesday.

Eduard Nahapetian said he was hired by the “Forbes” management to help to stop the publication of “Forbes Armenia.” “They have no license or any other authorization to use the name ‘Forbes,’” he told RFE/RL. “‘Forbes’ has asked us to help to stop this abuse.”

Nahapetian claimed that the publisher of “Forbes Armenia,” an obscure Yerevan-based company called Litsa, has admitted to the copyright violation and is now trying to negotiate a licensing deal with the U.S. outlet. “They fully agree with us,” he said.

The “Forbes-Armenia” director, Elizabeth Petrosian, declined to confirm or deny this. But she admitted that the glossy magazine has postponed the release of its second issue. Asked whether it will continue to be published, Petrosian said, “Time will tell.”
[…]

The magazine’s first issue came out a month ago and was almost exclusively devoted to Armenian politics, containing, among other things, a purported list of the country’s ten wealthiest individuals. It was topped by government-connected businessman Gagik Tsarukian and included six high-ranking government officials, including President Robert Kocharian and Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisian. The latter dismissed the rankings as a fraud, hinting that he believes they were commissioned by Tsarukian.

Tirami Su has more that news as well, while EurasiaNet covers another issue mentioned on this post — the matter of Kocharian stepping down from the presidency in 2008. Some analysts think that a scenerio is already being masterminded whereby the incumbent takes over as Prime Minister which is why he is not only supportive of Tsarukian’s Prosperous Armenia party, but might actually be behind its formation.

Prosperous Armenia, founded and funded by millionaire Gagik Tsarukian, has gained considerable popularity during the last year thanks in large part to charitable activities undertaken by a foundation of the same name. (Political parties themselves are forbidden from doing charitable work). The party commanded the support of 22 percent of 663 Yerevan residents surveyed in November 2006 by the APR Group, a market research and opinion polling firm. The party outstripped by 17 percentage points the runner-up Republican Party, the daily newspaper Aravot reported on November 29.

[…]

Speculations are numerous as to why Kocharian has not attempted to curtail Prosperous Armenia’s charitable activities as a show of loyalty to his long-time allies in the Republican Party. Most observers argue that Kocharian wants to have additional options at his disposal for a political career upon leaving office.

For now, politicians are mostly reluctant to comment on Kocharian’s statements, saying that much will depend on the actual results of the 2007 parliamentary elections. “Of course, Kocharian’s words are orders to officials to act in favor of parties he would like to see in the parliament,” the December 19 issue of the daily Haykakan Zhamanak quoted Stepan Demirchian, leader of the opposition People’s Party of Armenia, as saying. “However, only time will show what in reality will happen.”

Anyway, a particularly interesting 2007 Parliamentary Election Monitor this time, I think, and mainly because of Observer’s posting on democracy in Armenia. Hopefully, as the next few weeks and months pass, there will be more activity in the Armenian Blogosphere. Unfortunately, it is still somewhat lacking.