Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Istanbul: Post-Election Armenia: Choices And Challenges

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Istanbul: Post-Election Armenia: Choices And Challenges

    POST-ELECTION ARMENIA: CHOICES AND CHALLENGES

    Today's Zaman, Turkey
    Feb 27 2013

    Armenia's Feb. 18 presidential election saw the re-election of the
    incumbent, Serzh Sarksyan, who won 58 percent of the vote. Though the
    status quo remains unchanged, the post-election period looks set to be
    very interesting both for the country and for the future of the region.

    Before the election, the primary focus for the public was -- and
    still is -- the representation of Armenia in the run-up to 2018, the
    centenary of the country's first independence. For the government,
    the concern was how to respond to the electorate's needs and how to
    communicate an attractive vision of the country's future. Business
    elites along with the general public were concerned with how the
    government would contribute to economic development, which has been
    weak in recent years.

    These various concerns raised are "declared challenges," but there are
    also "undeclared challenges" -- i.e., ones that have been less overtly
    stated. The geopolitical environment in the region and beyond could
    change in ways that force Armenia to make important choices about
    its future. Currently, Yerevan seems to be increasingly dependent
    on Moscow, with the Kremlin forcing Armenia to participate in the
    Eurasian Union initiative. The other key question is whether the
    Armenian leadership will be ready to move towards a resolution of
    the almost 25-year-old Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Azerbaijan.

    On every issue, the leadership has choices to make -- which battles
    to fight, which alliances to foster and which visions to follow for
    the country's future. One unanswered question is whether President
    Sarksyan wants to see a successor in 2018, while another is the kind
    of political legacy that he wants to leave.

    Unsuccessful 'game changer'

    On the eve of the presidential election, Sarksyan seemed
    unchallengeable -- both Levon Ter-Petrosyan, the former president and
    leader of the Armenian National Congress, a coalition of opposition
    parties, and Gagik Tsarukyan, leader of the Prosperous Armenia Party,
    decided not to run. Ter-Petrosyan's decision sounded the death knell
    for the main opposition coalition. The birth of new political parties
    now seems likely, along with a new alliance among opposition forces.

    Tsarukyan's decision was likely calculated to win favor with Sarksyan,
    guaranteeing him a spot in the current government in the event
    of a reshuffle, whereby he could help create a favorable business
    environment for himself and his allies.

    The only surprise result was that Raffi Hovannisian was the runner-up,
    with 37 percent of the vote. After the election, the international
    media focused on Hovannisian as a realistic challenger. The speech
    in which Hovannisian declared himself the winner of the election
    to protesters in Liberty Square who opposed the election results,
    proclaiming that "this is not a fight between Raffi and Serzh
    [Sarksyan] but about the future of the Republic of Armenia and its
    citizens," was much discussed among international observers. At first
    glance, the statement is fascinating and what one might expect from a
    strong, charismatic leader. But in actual fact, Hovannisian's campaign
    benefitted from a clever use of social media, which he deployed to
    great effect, rather than his leadership credentials. A closer look at
    Hovannisian's political portfolio suggests that he is not a "desired"
    leader of the population.

    First of all, Hovannisian independently entered his candidacy; his
    party, the Heritage Party, of which he is the leader, did not back
    him and before the election he was not a favorite among the other
    candidates. It is interesting that he won 37 percent of the vote in
    this election, compared to main opposition leader Ter-Petrosyan's
    21.5 percent in 2008, when Ter-Petrosyan had a strong and accessible
    support base.

    Second, Hovannisian is not the open-minded, charismatic leader
    that Armenians want and need to challenge the "Karabakh clan"
    -- a group of political leaders from Karabakh, including former
    President Robert Kocharian and incumbent Sarksyan. The views of
    Hovannisian are more hard-line than those of Sarksyan. Hovannisian
    supports the recognition of the 1915 tragedy as genocide and doesn't
    pursue rapprochement with Turkey. He also supports the recognition
    of a separatist Nagorno-Karabakh entity, which means destroying
    any peaceful resolution of the conflict through negotiations with
    Azerbaijan. In contrast, President Sarksyan deemed the recognition
    of the separatist Nagorno-Karabakh entity political adventurism,
    lately declaring that "at the present moment, greater adventurism
    [than recognizing Karabakh's independence] could not exist," the
    local media reported.

    Many people saw the assassination attempt on presidential candidate
    Paruyr Hayrikyan at the end of January, just over two weeks before the
    election, as a possible "game changer," but in fact it was not. In
    this regard, the hoped-for "game changer" -- i.e., something that
    would mark the end of the current leadership and bring a breath of
    fresh air to national politics -- failed to materialize. The only
    consequence was that the undecided voters turned away from Sarksyan
    towards Hovannisian.

    Challenges for post-election period Armenia is now in the throes of
    post-election euphoria. Developments in the wrong direction could
    give rise to tragic consequences. Now, Hovannisian has started a
    new campaign called "BAREVolution," an Armenian-English word meaning
    "greetings to the revolution." He plans to hold a series of rallies
    in the regions in Armenia before returning to Yerevan for another
    one. His unorthodox politics have support from the opposition. It is
    tricky to discern exactly who is behind all of this as his supporters.

    If we look for a real game changer in terms of geopolitics, we might
    look to the debate ongoing since last year on civilian flights from
    Yerevan to the airport reconstructed by Armenia near Khojaly, the
    site of the 1992 massacre of Azerbaijanis. So to stop the opposition,
    Sarksyan could launch these flights, which would really be political
    adventurism. Azerbaijan's reaction could raise patriotic sentiments in
    Armenia, causing the opposition to lose momentum. On the other hand,
    such an action could prove highly problematic, both domestically and
    internationally, and for Azerbaijan, too.

    It seems that when the leadership does not properly respond to the
    declared challenges -- the ones issued by the people -- and instead
    plays political games full of bluffs and adventurism, there is much
    at stake. Such political maneuvers could be a real "game changer"
    for the region, with a serious risk of war.


    From: Baghdasarian
Working...
X