EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Armenia's Kocharian Stresses the Positive as Campaign Crests

EURASIA INSIGHT

ARMENIA’S KOCHARIAN STRESSES THE POSITIVE AS CAMPAIGN CRESTS
Emil Danielyan 2/14/03

Armenian President Robert Kocharian is heading into February 19 presidential elections with an upbeat message. Basing his campaign on the themes of "stability" and "progress," the incumbent says that Armenia is gradually emerging from its post-Soviet economic slump and needs to grant him a second term in order to finally turn the corner.

"Five more years, and the country’s face, standing and quality will change. And I call on you to build that country together [with me]," Kocharian declared at a campaign rally in Yerevan on February 13. "I am convinced that I can do a better job in the next five years." This note of humility has marked the 48-year-old incumbent’s few weeks of official campaigning around the nation. His unofficial reelection bid, marked by media-ready appearances at successful businesses and opening ceremonies, began months earlier and prompted accusations that Kocharian is using state resources to deliver his campaign message. Local observers say that the president seems to want to show impoverished and unemployed Armenians that his top priority is job creation. Even newly established small manufacturing firms have attracted presidential attention.

Kocharian and his allies say that statistics, rather than public-relations strategy, tell the campaign’s story. According to official statistics, the struggling Armenian economy grew at a record-high rate of almost 13 percent in 2002 while holding inflation at 2 percent. Economic growth in 2001 was also robust: 9.6 percent. Moreover, the economy’s structure seems to be getting healthier. Net exports shot up by 48 percent in 2002, reaching an all-time high of $507 million, while reducing the country’s trade deficit to $483.8 million. Even the normally reserved International Monetary Fund grades this performance as "strong." On February 10, the Fund reported that Armenia would probably soon get to draw $13 million from the Fund’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility budget.

Other presidential contenders point to facts and figures that contradict the president’s rosy macroeconomic news. Despite clear indications of an improving economic climate � including higher real estate prices, new small businesses, more cars in the streets � most ordinary Armenians have not seen their lives improve significantly, the challengers say. At least half of the population continues to live below the international poverty line, and citizens say that it remains very hard to find a decent job.

In November 2002, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development noted that growth in manufacturing, a potentially big source of job creation, "remains narrow and is based on growth in a relatively small number of firms." The EBRD concluded that the small domestic market and a "difficult investment climate" block broad-based economic development. While quite a few Armenians see things improving and give credit to Kocharian, many others remain unhappy. Their unhappiness, especially in economically stagnant rural areas, accounts in part for the stronger-than-expected attendance at opposition candidates’ rallies. "We haven’t seen any changes; life is as tough as it was before," said one resident of Mrgashat, a vine and wheat-growing village 40 kilometers west of Yerevan.

The leading opposition candidates are trying to gain support by challenging Kocharian’s growth claims. The most outspoken candidate, Artashes Geghamian, is citing other, less encouraging government data showing a steep decline in the birth rate and in public health and education standards. Another contender, Vazgen Manukian, argues that praise for economic improvement belongs to entrepreneurial Armenians who have learned how to adapt to the difficult economic climate of the post-Soviet era. The opposition candidates also contend that the most lucrative sectors of the Armenian economy are controlled by Kocharian’s associates and supporters and are closed to competition.

The Kocharian camp, in turn, has tried to blunt criticism by promoting nationalism within its version of economic history. "We wanted to have a state which is undergoing development, and we now have it despite continuing to be blockaded by our [external] enemies," said Vahan Hovannisian, a leader of the pro-presidential Armenian Revolutionary Federation, at the February 13 rally. Hovannisian’s emphasis on growth fits Kocharian’s electoral platform. The platform promises to keep up the pace of economic growth within the 8-12 percent range while "further strengthening of the foundations of liberal economics and property rights." Kocharian has additionally promised to create up to 40,000 new jobs each year, computerize every Armenian school and improve public services. That includes round-the-clock supplies of drinking water and a modern road infrastructure.

The president has yet to provide details about how his administration would go about keeping its campaign promises. He does not specify, for example, how the state can "effectively fight against the shadow economy," or to broaden access to higher educational opportunities for students from rural areas. Some political analysts say the fact that Kocharian continues to rely heavily on the state apparatus, including government-controlled mass media, suggests that he is unsure whether or not his message has gotten through to voters.

Editor�s Note: Emil Danielyan is a Yerevan-based journalist and political analyst.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.