EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Election Criticism Causing Pro-Western Shift in Armenian Public Opinion

EURASIA INSIGHT

ELECTION CRITICISM CAUSING PRO-WESTERN SHIFT IN ARMENIAN PUBLIC OPINION
Emil Danielyan 3/13/03

The ongoing controversy surrounding Armenia’s presidential election is producing geopolitical tremors. Allegations of ballot-rigging are prompting many citizens to reexamine their traditionally pro-Russian sentiments. At the same time, the disputed vote may push President Robert Kocharian’s administration to tighten already firm relations with Russia.

Moscow’s unequivocal endorsement of Kocharian’s controversial reelection has disappointed a large number of Armenians who believe the vote was rigged in the incumbent’s favor. Concurrently, many have welcomed the reaction of Western governments and organizations, which have harshly criticized the conduct of the entire presidential election process. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Some observers believe that the vote-rigging controversy could create a destabilizing gulf between Kocharian’s administration and a large segment of the electorate, especially supporters of defeated presidential contender Stepan Demirchian.

A major source of popular disaffection was a CIS observer team’s characterization of the run-off as largely free and fair. In addition, Russia’s ambassador to Armenia, Anatoly Dryukov, was the first foreign diplomat to visit Kocharian after the second round of voting on March 5. Shortly thereafter, President Vladimir Putin on March 7 hailed Kocharian’s victory as "convincing and impressive." [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Disappointment and even anger over Russia’s response seems to run high among the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Armenians who voted for Demirchian. "I was upset with what Putin did," said Robert Sardarian, a middle-aged engineer. Sardarian predicted that attitudes towards Russia "will now somewhat deteriorate."

Even those who retain fond memories of the Soviet era have expressed surprise over Moscow’s praise for Kocharian. "I’m a strong advocate of socialism, but I must admit that America and the European countries are far ahead of the CIS countries in many respects," said Vazgen Aslikian, an elderly schoolteacher. "I therefore salute the capitalist world for its commitment to democracy."

Given the historically close relationship between Armenia and Russia, opposition leaders in Yerevan have stopped short of explicitly denouncing the Kremlin. Instead, they stress that Western criticism of Kocharian’s reelection carries more weight than Russian support for the incumbent. "The entire progressive world is with us," Stepan Zakarian, a top Demirchian aide, declared at a recent opposition rally.

At a March 12 news conference, US Ambassador to Armenia John Ordway voiced fresh criticism over the run-off’s "serious shortcomings." Shortly after the vote, observers from both the Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) issued detailed critiques covering the election campaign and the February 19 and March 5 rounds of voting. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

"We were disappointed," Ordway said. "It was not what we’d hoped for and expected from Armenia. We had very much hoped that this election would represent a step forward in the right direction. But it did not."

Western criticism has bolstered Demirchian and his supporters as they continue their struggle to have the voting results nullified. The next step for the opposition appears to be an appeal to Armenia’s Constitutional Court.

Kocharian, speaking at a news conference March 12, assailed his opponents, suggesting that they were deliberately fomenting discontent in an attempt to broaden their appeal ahead of May parliamentary elections. "These tactical reasons of the opposition can be understood," Kocharian said. "But nobody has the right to use the stability of the country for his political interests."

The president also brushed off Western criticism. "We are not holding elections to be accountable to someone [abroad]. We are holding them for this country," he said. Kocharian went on to complain that the democratic standards applied to Armenia by the OSCE and the Council of Europe are too strict.

Kocharian’s political allies have been more outspoken in their comments. A leader of the pro-presidential Armenian Revolutionary Federation party, Vahan Hovannisian, described the United States as "a force seeking decisions stemming from the interests of our enemies."

A commentary in Hayots Ashkhar, a Yerevan daily that staunchly backs Kocharian, said that unlike Russia, the West is not interested in political stability in Armenia. "The United States and a part of European structures that are under its influence have a vested interest in the formation of a regime in Armenia that would quickly get rid of the Karabakh issue [in Azerbaijan’s favor], paving the way for the realization of their plans to penetrate the region."

Demirchian supporters bristle at the suggestion that their action runs counter to Armenia’s best interests. "Our position is pro-Western in the sense that we stand for the respect of European standards," explained another prominent opposition figure, Shavarsh Kocharian. (No relation to the president.) "Call it whatever you like, but that’s what it is all about."

The apparent shift in public opinion contrasts with the Kocharian administration’s irritable reaction to international criticism. Faced with the possibility of international isolation, officials in Yerevan may feel compelled to pursue closer ties with Moscow.

As the pro-opposition newspaper Iravunk put it: "The regime, anxious to retain its hold on power, drastically changed its geopolitical orientation, effectively marking the beginning of a confrontation between Armenia and the West. In the long term, it has already laid the groundwork for the weakening of Russia’s positions in Armenia."

According to one Western diplomat in Yerevan, although the Americans and Europeans plan no sanctions against Kocharian’s administration, its "crude" conduct of the election has dealt a severe blow to Armenia’s international standing. The West, he said, could scale down high-level diplomatic contacts with the country.

Moscow and Yerevan are expected to sign in the near future an agreement giving Russia control over the financial management of Armenia’s Metsamor nuclear power station to settle $40 million in debts to Russian nuclear companies. According to Armenian press reports, the deal may also give Russian companies control over several Armenian hydro-electric power plants. That would deepen Armenia’s already strong dependence on Russia for energy and solidify its status as Moscow’s key ally in the region.

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.