June 13, 2007
Rafael from Wisconsin, USA writes:

Dear EurasiaNet,
The idea that a free election was held is preposterous. There has never been a free election and never will be until the Armenian people show that they are sick of the status quo, and that there must be a change. America and the EU should force Armenia to hold a free and balanced election. The fear that this will cause instability in the region is absurd, considering that [President] Robert Kocharian after eight years in office still hasn't resolved the mess in Karbakh.



May 31, 2007
Mariam from New York City, New York, USA writes:

Dear EurasiaNet,
The one positive thing that can be said about the OSCE observers' report is that it may spur Armenians to not look to the outside world to safeguard the freeness or the fairness of Armenian elections, but to rely on themselves. Apparently, outside observers know close to nothing about the way Armenian politics functions -- if no one is badly beaten up on election day or they did not see anyone making off with a ballot box, they'll call it a vote that largely met international standards. But did it? There's more to an election than election day itself. Did they pay any attention to rampant vote buying, passport data manipulation, denial of assembly permits to opposition groups and limited media access? How bad do things have to get before they'll say that a vote does NOT meet international standards? What's their cut-off mark?



May 16, 2007
An anonymous site visitor from Baku, Azerbaijan writes:

Dear EurasiaNet,
What really needs to be highlighted, and something that the general public doesn't know, is that OSCE/ODIHR is fabulously inept at detecting more advanced versions of manipulation. I'm saying this with considerable experience observing with and for ODIHR. The ODIHR briefings are shallow, usually focusing on administration or on largely irrelevant electoral mechanics. If sophisticated fraud is caught, this, in many cases, is either due to a few random experienced observers (who are increasingly rare, since they are fed up observing with ODIHR), or just a lucky strike. More than 20 percent of election commissions have difficulties compiling the protocol? Well, in many cases these difficulties are not entirely accidental, they are deliberate, so that protocols (already with some corrections) can later be manipulated.

Since the opposition had difficulties getting heard, pushing them below the 5 percent hurdle can easily be engineered by either inflating the general turnout figures, or removing votes from the opposition.

It is entirely possible that these elections indeed were an improvement. The problem is that we will never quite know. With ODIHR's deeply entrenched incompetence (any person with experience can tell extensive tales, and specific details about unwillingness to change, and the same mistakes happening over and over and over again), a favorable assessment may simply mean that they walked right past things.



May 17, 2007
David writes:

Dear EurasiaNet,
[I]t is clear that the OSCE lowered [its] standards for Armenia. You could read between the lines in their report fear of another offensive and sabotage by Russia. The organization has been hijacked by Russia. This report is a shame. How can a corrupt government be hailed for fair elections when there were reports about faking so many passports, and more importantly, opposition was virtually out of any access to prime-time air o[n] national TVs?



May 17, 2007
Edgar from London, the United Kingdom writes:

Dear EurasiaNet,
I do agree that [the] RPA doesnt need to rig the election, because as I can see watching tv and reading [the] news, people started to trust in [the] Republicans and its leader, Serj Sargsian. A very good . . . argument is that I believe that Sargsian will hold his promises given when the party was campaigning,and the reason for that is the 2008 presidential elections. The reason for it is that he wants to be legitimately elected president, backed by the people.



May 9, 2007
Artak from Armenia writes:

Dear EurasiaNet,
I wonder whether Americans will pull away [the] Millenium Challenge Account, as they say, if elections are bad. I'm not sure they['re] serious about [the] elections. [Azerbaijani President Ilham] Aliyev was visiting [the] White House just six months after [a] big [election] fraud. So maybe power [is] more important than principle.



May 9, 2007
Philip W. from Berlin, Germany writes:

Dear EurasiaNet,
I think for all these transition countries, "managed democracy" still is the best way of describing it. I don't expect a free and fair vote. But I don't understand what the benefits are of having a more democratic system. You would think that the Baltics show that democracy (including regular changes of government) actually work for everyone. Why don't Armenians understand that? And if they understand it, why don't they stand up against the system?