Armenian government officials have announced their readiness for a free and fair vote on May 12 that, as Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisian told The Financial Times, will help the country "to become part of the European family." In 2003, political leaders expressed similar sentiments, but the reality turned out quite different. Will 2007 provide change at last?

Early reports about the election's conduct were mixed. Journalists and observers generally reported a calm atmosphere, but not without accounts of some questionable tactics.

One of the most widely reported concerned polling station 12/26 in the Yerevan district of Noragvit. Former ombudsman Larisa Alaverdian, a candidate in the constituency for the opposition Heritage Party, told media and international observers that the Republican Party of Armenia was allegedly busing individuals to the station to vote, giving them green pens to mark their ballots, and paying them 5,000 dram per vote for the party.

A EurasiaNet photographer was initially denied access to the polling station, his foreign ministry accreditation deemed invalid. Intervention by the Central Election Commission rectified the situation.

The local independent weekly ArmeniaNow reported that opposition proxies have been barred from some polling stations, and that "long lines" of voters whose names were not on registration lists have formed outside some courts in the capital city.

For now, whether these will prove isolated incidents or part of a general pattern of behavior remains unclear. International observers are expected to release their initial findings on May 13.

Campaign irregularities and election law violations noted to date by the domestic observation organization It's Your Choice, however, have varied little from 2003: errors in voter registration, misuse of "administrative resources" by officials, and vote buying, among others.

But much has changed. In 2003, It's Your Choice described a pre-election-day "atmosphere of mutual mistrust." This year, the organization stated that the campaign "was relatively calm and [took place] in a balanced atmosphere" compared with the 2003 vote and the disputed 2005 constitutional referendum.

The situation, though, is far from ideal. As has been extensively reported, vote buying remains a persistent ill; though, by its nature, this is a problem difficult to detect.

Attempts to target the opposition with so-called "black PR" also continue. The largest scandal is the mysterious taping of a conversation between opposition leader Artur Baghdasarian and a British diplomat about the conduct of the elections

In 2003, such cases were abundant, however. Despite disproportionately heavy coverage of pro-government parties by television channels, international observers have commended public television for largely adhering to allocation of free airtime to political parties.

The reason for much of the difference lies in the overall political situation. The May 2003 parliamentary elections came two months after a presidential vote that had seen widespread outrage and street protests at what the opposition considered to be the rigged re-election of President Robert Kocharian. The defeated candidate, Stepan Demirchian, head of the People's Party of Armenia, was at the time a relatively strong rival, whom the Kocharian administration feared could pose a serious threat through popular demonstrations.

Against this backdrop, the presidential administration took every step possible to retain power: intimidation and bribing of electoral commissions, highly biased television coverage, ballot stuffing, incorrect counting and, finally, even cutting off transportation from the regions to Yerevan to prevent voters from joining opposition rallies.

This year, the failure of major opposition parties to form a united campaign bloc is believed to have considerably weakened the chances of anti-government parties at the polls. Stepan Demirchian's former popularity has largely evaporated; attendance at his rallies is relatively sparse. Once common talk by mainstream opposition parties about overthrowing the "illegal regime" has moderated.

The role of the pro-government Prosperous Armenia Party in attracting economically disadvantaged voters, many of whom have traditionally supported the opposition, could also play a role in this trend. Sociologist Aharon Adibekian has contended that the party "enjoys the sympathy of a significant part" of this electorate.

Meanwhile, the campaign's sole opposition bloc, while vocal about its desire for "regime change," does not hold demonstratively broad influence among Armenian society.

That situation, however, could change, some observers have said, if more moderate parties such as the increasingly popular Heritage Party, led by US-born former Foreign Minister Raffi Hovannisian, or the Country of Law Party, led by former Parliamentary Speaker Artur Baghdasarian, take to the streets with this coalition.

The days to come will determine the likelihood of that "what if?" scenario -- and if Armenians will finally get the free and fair vote they wish.

Editor's Note: Haroutiun Khachatrian is a Yerevan-based writer specializing in economic and political affairs.