EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Armenian Opposition Seeks to Regroup After Constitutional Referendum Setback

EURASIA INSIGHT

ARMENIAN OPPOSITION SEEKS TO REGROUP AFTER CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM SETBACK
Haroutiun Khachatrian 12/15/05

Armenia’s main opposition parties are reeling following the collapse of their latest attempt to foster mass protests against President Robert Kocharian’s administration.

Opposition leaders are now saying that they are prepared for a period of prolonged political skirmishing. Despite their evidently weak position at present, some opposition leaders continue to proclaim that their efforts to topple Kocharian will succeed before Armenia holds its next parliamentary elections in 2007.

A coalition of 27 opposition parties and non-governmental organizations had sought to use the November 27 constitutional referendum to launch a fresh political counter-offensive against Kocharian. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. At first, the coalition urged a referendum boycott. After the official approval of the constitutional changes amid controversy over turnout totals, the opposition coalition opted for a mass-protest strategy. In doing so, however, opposition leaders appeared to miscalculate the population’s willingness to take to the streets, as the initial rallies drew sparse crowds. The initial rallies failed to attract crowds of more than a couple of thousand people.

The opposition originally envisioned that the protests would continue until the government agreed to its demands, namely the invalidation of the referendum result due to insufficient turnout. Opposition leaders insisted that officials massaged both the turnout totals and the voting tally. At the first protest, the opposition issued an ultimatum, giving Kocharian 72 hours to agree to the invalidation demand. One leading presidential critic, Aram Sargsian, leader of the Republic Party, went so far as to vow that the protest movement would smash the current [Kocharian’s] Third Republic, which was founded in 1991, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, and build a Fourth Republic in its place.

The low turnout at the November 27 rally did little to impress Kocharian’s administration, and officials ignored the opposition referendum demand. The next opposition rally on December 9 also failed to generate a significant turnout. It marks the second time that the protest strategy has failed to achieve the desired results. A similar campaign in 2004 fizzled after government security forces used tough tactics against protesters in April 2004. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Concurrent with the protests, opposition leaders announced that they would embark on a comprehensive effort to document electoral violations during the referendum, as well as initiate a petition drive in support of the call to invalidate the referendum result. As with the protests, though, both efforts fell flat. Political observers in Yerevan noted that opposition parties were not undertaking any active steps to gather signatures.

Tactical difference among leaders now appears to be straining the opposition’s cohesiveness. For example, the National Unity Party, led by Artashes Gegamian, joined in the call for a referendum boycott, but began distancing itself from the mass-protest strategy in early December. On December 14, two prominent leaders of the Ardarutiun (Justice) Bloc, Stepan Demirchian and Arshak Sadoyan, followed Gheghamian in saying that rallies are not appropriate. In addition, attitudes vary greatly among those leaders still favoring the protest strategy. Sargsian is among the more confrontational leaders. Others, such as Vazgen Manukian of the National Democratic Union, seem interested in staking out a softer position. In an interview with the A1+ weekly, for instance, Manukian pointedly refused to endorse a statement made by Sargsian that Kocharian could be ousted with a single phone call once the "critical mass" of opposition protesters was reached.

In addition to a lack of popular backing, Armenia’s opposition does not seem enjoy significant international support for its effort to cancel the referendum results. In general, foreign governments and international organizations, such as the Council of Europe, have supported the opposition’s contention that referendum turnout figures seemed inflated. Yerevan-based European diplomats reportedly voiced their dissatisfaction with the conduct of the referendum during a December 8 meeting with opposition leaders. Nevertheless, foreign governments and international organizations have stopped short of characterizing the referendum’s outcome as tainted. It appears that some opposition parties are set to adopt a more aggressive stance in the international arena. For example, the Justice parliamentary faction has already decided to replace its representative in the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly with a bitter presidential foe, party leader Stepan Demirchian, who will replace the moderate-minded Shavarsh Kocharian.

Opposition-leaning media outlets have started to express frustration over the inability of the anti-Kocharian coalition to make headway in promoting political change. "They sent people home to organize a long and strong struggle," noted one sarcastic commentary published in the Aravot newspaper on December 10.

Armenian experts suggest widespread apathy concerning the constitutional referendum worked against the opposition. At a December 6 discussion sponsored by the National Press Club, political scientist Stepan Safarian maintained that the only issue capable of generating broad public interest these days is the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

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

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.