Election Bribes — An Armenian Reality
Armenian drams © Onnik Krikorian/Oneworld Multimedia for EurasiaNet 2007
As most of us realize, the 12 May parliamentary election was not determined by the kind of falsification we’ve seen in past elections here. Indeed, almost everyone who entered a polling station on voting day was surprised at how orderly things were for the most part. However, many of us also suppose that those we saw being bussed in to vote were part of some larger operation to determine the outcome of the election in the easiest way possible.
If many among the electorate care neither for the government or the opposition, appeal to their pockets instead — pay them for their votes. Let’s face it, corruption and bribery define almost every walk of life in Armenia — from the very top to the very bottom. Hetq Online has just posted an interview with lawyer Hrayr Tovmasyan on this reality and why it might have manifested itself so prominently in this year’s election.
The prevailing mentality that nothing will change anyway is deeply embedded in the populace. According to my observations, a large segment of society thus believes that “whoever is meant to win, will win” and given that their vote is meaningless anyway they might as well profit from voting. In other words, accepting a bribe. Another important factor is the poor socio-economic situation. I often portray the Armenian bribe taker as someone who has spent a long time in the desert without food or water. Suddenly, two people appear. One promises to give him a piece of bread and a glass of water if our desert dweller votes in his favor. The second promises to show him the road to follow to reach a supply of both food and water. The man takes the immediate offer of the bread and water, not realizing that he’ll still be in the desert for the foreseeable future. I should add that the man also isn’t convinced that he’ll be shown the correct path in order to reach the promised food and drink. There’s another reason as well. Around her, if we catch someone stealing money from our pocket we naturally call him a thief. But those who stuff ballots and deal in bribes, etc, are not considered criminals in our society. On the contrary, they’re seen as the “clever” ones.
[…]
In Armenia, holding on to the reins of power is the most direct route to self-enrichment. Power allows one to be in an ideal position to partake in the distribution of wealth and property. Political power also makes it easier to defend one’s accumulated wealth as other, legal means, to do so are absent; namely a free and fair court system. So we are faced with both bribe givers and takers. Together they form a self-perpetuating cycle. Election fraud has changed in form only. Whereas in 2003, it surfaced in the form of beatings, theft, etc, today, the purveyors of fraud go knocking from door-to-door, making deals and handing out bribes.
[…]
The observers surely felt that something was going on during the election process but understood that they were in no position to make any blanket statements to this effect. But we can talk about widespread election bribes because we are members of this society and are intimately aware of who’s who and what’s what. The observers didn’t have such a vantage point. Thus, we can’t really blame the observers for turning a blind eye on the problem of election fraud. And bribery is one of it’s most complicated criminal manifestations.
Of course, this last response doesn’t explain why local domestic observers also gave the election a clean bill of health or maybe it does. Unfortunately, many oppositional groups here base everything on their gut feelings or suspicions rather than the law and evidence. I have that same suspicion too, but can not be sure because I have seen no evidence whatsoever presented even by the opposition. No doubt local and international observers feel the same.
Anyway, the full interview is here.
Meanwhile, one has to wonder whether that part of the opposition or civil society that played partisan games within their own anti-governmental circles understand the need to address these problems sooner rather than later. According to RFE/RL’s Press Review, however, the pro-opposition Aravot newspaper is not convinced they are either willing or able to.
“Aravot” predicts that the Armenian opposition will hardly be more united during the 2008 vote. “The oppositionists are already preparing to repeat their mistake committed in the National Assembly elections: opting for stealing votes from each other and ‘ensuring’ their defeat several months before the presidential campaign,” editorializes the paper. “And yet the first thing the already nominated five oppositionists should have done was to negotiate with Orinats Yerkir, Zharangutyun, and even Dashnaktsutyun. First of all because those parties will have seats in the [new] election commissions.”
Unless there’s a lot of soul searching and assessment of the mistakes they made in the 12 May parliamentary election, civil society — and especially politically partisan NGOS — and the opposition will find themselves in the same situation next year after the presidential election as they do now. The West is certainly not going to be too keen on helping those who are unable or unwilling to help and change themselves.
Actually campaigning and gathering irrefutable evidence instead of calling for “democratic revolution” with less than genuine pro-Western credentials would be something else they could do if they want to be taken seriously in the future.
Not sure I totally agree with Iskandaryan from the Caucasus
MafiaMedia Institute, but anyway, something to think about. For sure, as outlined above, many voters chose the option guaranteed to give them some immediate payback. Can’t really blame them, I suppose, although I don’t agree with the direct comparison between election promises and outright bribes. On the other hand, many Armenians took them gladly.Anyway, was speaking to a head of an international organization earlier today and where the country fell down in terms of the election is an internal matter for Armenians to resolve. Reminds me of introducing one local youth activist to one of the OSCE LTOs two days after the election. “Thanks for your report,” the youth activist said sarcastically. “Now I understand that we can’t rely on the international community. We have to rely on ourselves,” she continued quite angrily.
My response was instead of expecting foreigners to intervene in domestic politics for them, this should always have been the case. Hopefully, some inner reflection on the entire electoral process this year will occur, especially among civil society activists who became too partisan to specific minor opposition groups and missed the larger picture of what was at stake and what went wrong. Of course, there were many things that went right as well, but anyway.
Comment by Onnik — May 22, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Comment by Onnik — May 22, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
Comment by Onnik — May 23, 2007 @ 12:05 am
Comment by Onnik — May 24, 2007 @ 5:58 pm