In recently released reports, local and international observers have noted improvements in Armenia’s preparations for its May 12 parliamentary vote, but a potpourri of election code violations and campaign irregularities suggest that the country’s election clean-up campaign may have mixed results.

The secret taping of a conversation about the election between opposition Orinats Yerkir (Country of Law) leader Artur Baghdasarian and a senior British diplomat received the harshest condemnation as a violation of a constitutional right to the “secrecy of communications.” [For details, see the Eurasia Insight archive.] “I am more disappointed by the taping than by other violations,” commented Avetik Ishkhanian, chairman of the Helsinki Association, a human rights activist group.

The most recent report by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) election observation mission also addresses the recording scandal. The April 18 – May 2 report notes that “it is not clear whether an investigation has been initiated into how the recording was made, and by whom.” The National Security Service has denied an OSCE/ODHIR request for a meeting to discuss the incident, saying that the case does not fall within its purview, the report said.

In a May 7 statement issued in response to the OSCE/ODIHR report, though, the Armenian foreign ministry noted that observers did not have access to full information about the Baghdasarian recording incident.

While some local observers and opposition members cite the recording and President Robert Kocharian’s denunciation of Baghdasarian as part of an “atmosphere of fear” dominating the campaign, other observers and the OSCE/ODIHR take a more neutral stance.

Harutyun Hambardzumian, chairman of It’s Your Choice, Armenia’s largest domestic observation group, calls the 2007 campaign relatively quiet and balanced, compared with the 2003 parliamentary and presidential elections and 2005 constitutional referendum. The group ran more than 4,000 observation missions throughout Armenia between April 3 and May 8. “We have recorded both positive and negative phenomena,” Hambardzumian told journalists on May 8.

Among the positive developments, the group cites the planned publication of election results on the Central Election Commission’s website and voters’ ability to confirm their registration online. The OSCE/ODIHR noted that the Commission has “continued enhancing the openness of election preparation procedures,” and described most Territorial Election Commissions as “working effectively” and “open” to international observers.

Sharper differences have been expressed in relation to Armenia’s refusal to issue visas for eight OSCE observers from Turkey, with which Yerevan has no diplomatic relations. PanArmenian news agency cited foreign ministry spokesperson Vladimir Karapetian as indicating the absence of such ties as the reason for the refusal, but a May 7 statement from the OSCE/ODIHR countered that Armenia, as an OSCE member, “is bound” to uphold “OSCE commitments on democratic elections, which include an invitation to all OSCE States to observe elections.”

It’s Your Choice observers have applauded numerous public statements by political parties and government officials about the importance of a free and fair election. Authorities’ condemnations of election violations and campaign violence also won high marks.

Some long-standing complaints about the campaign, however, remain cause for concern.

The It’s Your Choice report cites the distribution of various goods and services to voters as among the most egregious violations of the election code. The pro-government Prosperous Armenia Party, which has won wide renown for charitable activities associated with its head, Gagik Tsarukian, comes in for particular criticism. [For details, see the Eurasia Insight archive.]

The OSCE/ODIHR report describes enforcement of a ban on parties’ distribution of goods or services to voters as “limited . . . since prosecutors are reluctant to pursue cases in which a clear connection to influencing voters cannot be proved.” The CEC states that it has received no complaints about such actions to date, the report adds.

One human rights activist argues that the “charitable” acts of the Prosperous Armenia Party have been matched by the ruling Republican Party of Armenia’s use of administrative resources. This “was not the case before,” said Artur Sakunts, chairman of the Vanadzor office of the Helsinki Civil Assembly human rights organization.

The party has also used its presence in the school system and in various government agencies “to apply pressure on the population to support the RPA,” Sakunts added. Reports of state employees being sent to attend Republican Party rallies are common among ordinary voters.

The lack of a clear dividing line between official work trips by government ministers and campaign events was also cited by It’s Your Choice. Both the Republican Party and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, a member of Armenia’s governing coalition, were cited in this regard. “The starting conditions for political forces competing for parliamentary seats have not been equal,” commented Hambardzumian.

Some opposition members have also complained about the collection of passport data as another campaign practice that relies on officials’ reluctance to respond. [For details, see the Eurasia Insight archive.] The OSCE/ODIHR report, however, describes reported instances of passport collection as “anecdotes” that are “unverifiable,” but notes that such stories indicate voter “mistrust and cynicism among part of the electorate.”

Government reactions to the local observers’ findings were not immediately available. (May 9 is an official holiday in Armenia in commemoration of the end of World War II in Europe. )

Editor’s Note: Marianna Grigoryan is a reporter for the independent online ArmeniaNow weekly in Yerevan.