Tweet
IT IS NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE PAST STAGE AND GO ON TO THE NEXT
Naira Hayrumyan
Lragir, Armenia
July 18 2007
The election campaign in Karabakh is over, and tomorrow the president
will be elected. The foreign observers have already arrived.
Yesterday they met with the civil society activists.
The observers asked several essential questions. We will try to view
the pre-election process in the context of these questions. It will
help evaluate the situation from the point of view of a side observer
who has no political bias and views the events in the context of
historical development.
Is there democracy in Karabakh?
First of all, an observer is interested in the track of state building
in Karabakh. Do you detect a democratic process in the country
and what are your thoughts about the election in this context, the
observers asked?
In fact, is there progress towards democracy? Certainly, there is. If
7 or 8 years ago nobody thought about rights, and security was the
only concern, now the life of a human is an absolute value. And a new
stage has started, when people want the law to protect their rights
and dignity. This is the problem in Karabakh now, although steps are
taken in this direction. One of the main problems of the president
must be the reform of the judicial system, the administrative system,
respect for a human, reduction of bureaucracy.
As to the election, it should be noted that the current election could
be a trampoline to go on to the next stage of democratic reforms. In
the constitutions of most countries, including Karabakh, it is set down
that the same person cannot be elected president for more than two
terms running. In some European countries one term is the limit. The
explanation is that within a few years of presidency a person (and the
president is a person with all his weaknesses) unintentionally sets
up connections in the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, major
businesses, political and non-governmental organizations, influential
media. And proceeding from these human relations, which sometimes
grow into criminal arrangements, some functions of the government,
including the rule of law, social justice, public control over the
government may undergo atrophy.
However, in speaking about the personality of the president it should
be taken into account that if the given president puts up someone who
will continue his line, in other words, he wants to reproduce, it also
refers to the provision which bars third term running. In this case,
the struggle involves the candidate put up by the president whose term
ended (it is possible that the candidate matches the post of president)
and the person who worked in the system of foreign policy and was
not related to business, the internal administrative system and has
no financial, tax, loan and other obligations to the representatives
of the government. We only need to wait for another day to see which
track people will choose.
How open the election campaign was?
The campaign was not absolute. On the one hand, the only local TV
channel in Karabakh provided a rather equal reporting on the election
campaign of the candidates. There were fears that the Public Channel
would be biased, however, on the whole it passed the test. The cases
of bias were reported to the CEC by the election headquarters of the
candidate Masis Mayilyan.
On the other hand, the headquarters of the same candidate reported a
number of cases of intimidation of voters by the local governments,
security agencies, directors of different organizations. These cases
were reported to the CEC, but the response of the commission ran the
abovementioned people deny intimidation, meanwhile "the chair of the
CEC has no possibility to check all the facts."
Nevertheless, the candidate who met so many hindrances managed to
hold a number of meetings.
They say this election differs from all the previous elections. How,
the observers ask?
First of all because in the previous elections there was a favorite
candidate, and people voted for him. This time, there are at least
two likely candidates, Bako Sahakyan and Masis Mayilyan. And now it
is necessary to make a conscious vote.
Although on the last day of the election campaign Armen Abgaryan was
active too, who stated in his TV address that he and Bako Sahakyan
will be the main opponents. Apparently, the government is sure
that its candidate will get 50-55 percent in the first round, and
decided to make efforts to reduce Masis Mayilyan's votes. Therefore,
they decided to put up Armen Abgaryan who made sensational populist
statements that he is likely to unify Armenia and Karabakh, elections
are unnecessary because elections divide the society, and Bako Sahakyan
was his assistant when he was deputy commander on the rear, and they
have good relations.
It is possible that Bako Sahakyan will win in the first round.
However, it is highly probable that Masis Mayilyan will get an
anticipated 35-40 percent, Armen Abgaryan may get 10 percent, the
other candidates will get some votes, and there will be a second
round. Because Masis Mayilyan's voters will not vote for Armen
Abgaryan. Let us wait for another day.
Will the "outside" help us?
Another "symptom" of this election is support from the outside. In
reality, there is no support. In most cases its absence is support.
The observers first ask about Armenia. Judging by public statements,
only the Armenian prime minister Sargsyan declared "our candidate
is Bako Sahakyan". President Kocharyan did not express his stance,
which by the way was perceived as a bad sign by some supporters of
Bako Sahakyan. Armenia's "support" was advertisement of Bako Sahakyan
on all the pro-government channels of Armenia.
As to Moscow, it is not seen anywhere. The only thing is that one of
the personal merits of Bako Sahakyan is said to be his "connections
with Moscow-based businesses".
Masis Mayilyan is said to have connections with the West. This question
is manipulated by a few people who make groundless accusations
against Masis Mayilyan. Perhaps these manipulations are due to the
participation of Gegham Baghdasaryan, the editor of the Demo which
is financed by a British organization, in Masis Mayilyan's team. In
addition, the accusations are confined to "their" receiving money
from the U.K. It is not clear from the articles that appear what
wrong things the "British spies" do. Besides, they forget to note
that there are a number of civil society activists in Bako Sahakyan's
team who started getting foreign grants earlier than the others. This
is evidence to political manipulations. Although it is not clear yet
what role the rumors about Masis Mayilyan's connections had, positive
or negative. For the government had proclaimed European integration
as a priority.
Why did everyone support the common candidate?
This question worries the observers. We who live in Karabakh are
already used to the idea that parties with different stances could
support the same candidate. People who are outside cannot understand
this. We were told that unification was for the sake of national
security. Is it so, the observers asked?
No, it is not, we answer naively. And there are several reasons.
First, if the national security of Karabakh was threatened, and
therefore we needed to come together, the government had the right
not to hold an election. It is set down in the Constitution that
no elections are held at martial law. And the martial law has been
prolonged until January 1, 2008. It means it is not a matter of danger.
For people who live in Karabakh it would even be unnatural if the
parliament forces did not have a common stance. The point is that
Karabakh has no opposition for some time now. At least, since the
parliamentary election no party was opposition in the legislature.
Therefore, there was no need to expect polarization of opinions.
Besides, the leaders of the parties have their interests - financial,
business or political. And in our country where there are no
major foreign investments, the inflow of international funds, legal
protection of property, connections with the government are the only
guarantee of success. Therefore, the leaders of the parties preferred
a predictable candidate. Therefore they supported. Otherwise, it
is difficult to understand why the parties which had agreed on the
general principles of development of the state beforehand, chose this
candidate whose program includes these principles.
To sum up
Despite the outcome of the election, there is already a major
advantage. First of all, people have a chance to discuss how to go
on. Second, the "size" of the administrative resource was revealed,
and it became known that it was extremely "stretched". For nobody
expected that democracy in Karabakh would be built in an hour or two.
It is impossible. It is only necessary to evaluate the past stage
and go on to the next.
Naira Hayrumyan
Lragir, Armenia
July 18 2007
The election campaign in Karabakh is over, and tomorrow the president
will be elected. The foreign observers have already arrived.
Yesterday they met with the civil society activists.
The observers asked several essential questions. We will try to view
the pre-election process in the context of these questions. It will
help evaluate the situation from the point of view of a side observer
who has no political bias and views the events in the context of
historical development.
Is there democracy in Karabakh?
First of all, an observer is interested in the track of state building
in Karabakh. Do you detect a democratic process in the country
and what are your thoughts about the election in this context, the
observers asked?
In fact, is there progress towards democracy? Certainly, there is. If
7 or 8 years ago nobody thought about rights, and security was the
only concern, now the life of a human is an absolute value. And a new
stage has started, when people want the law to protect their rights
and dignity. This is the problem in Karabakh now, although steps are
taken in this direction. One of the main problems of the president
must be the reform of the judicial system, the administrative system,
respect for a human, reduction of bureaucracy.
As to the election, it should be noted that the current election could
be a trampoline to go on to the next stage of democratic reforms. In
the constitutions of most countries, including Karabakh, it is set down
that the same person cannot be elected president for more than two
terms running. In some European countries one term is the limit. The
explanation is that within a few years of presidency a person (and the
president is a person with all his weaknesses) unintentionally sets
up connections in the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, major
businesses, political and non-governmental organizations, influential
media. And proceeding from these human relations, which sometimes
grow into criminal arrangements, some functions of the government,
including the rule of law, social justice, public control over the
government may undergo atrophy.
However, in speaking about the personality of the president it should
be taken into account that if the given president puts up someone who
will continue his line, in other words, he wants to reproduce, it also
refers to the provision which bars third term running. In this case,
the struggle involves the candidate put up by the president whose term
ended (it is possible that the candidate matches the post of president)
and the person who worked in the system of foreign policy and was
not related to business, the internal administrative system and has
no financial, tax, loan and other obligations to the representatives
of the government. We only need to wait for another day to see which
track people will choose.
How open the election campaign was?
The campaign was not absolute. On the one hand, the only local TV
channel in Karabakh provided a rather equal reporting on the election
campaign of the candidates. There were fears that the Public Channel
would be biased, however, on the whole it passed the test. The cases
of bias were reported to the CEC by the election headquarters of the
candidate Masis Mayilyan.
On the other hand, the headquarters of the same candidate reported a
number of cases of intimidation of voters by the local governments,
security agencies, directors of different organizations. These cases
were reported to the CEC, but the response of the commission ran the
abovementioned people deny intimidation, meanwhile "the chair of the
CEC has no possibility to check all the facts."
Nevertheless, the candidate who met so many hindrances managed to
hold a number of meetings.
They say this election differs from all the previous elections. How,
the observers ask?
First of all because in the previous elections there was a favorite
candidate, and people voted for him. This time, there are at least
two likely candidates, Bako Sahakyan and Masis Mayilyan. And now it
is necessary to make a conscious vote.
Although on the last day of the election campaign Armen Abgaryan was
active too, who stated in his TV address that he and Bako Sahakyan
will be the main opponents. Apparently, the government is sure
that its candidate will get 50-55 percent in the first round, and
decided to make efforts to reduce Masis Mayilyan's votes. Therefore,
they decided to put up Armen Abgaryan who made sensational populist
statements that he is likely to unify Armenia and Karabakh, elections
are unnecessary because elections divide the society, and Bako Sahakyan
was his assistant when he was deputy commander on the rear, and they
have good relations.
It is possible that Bako Sahakyan will win in the first round.
However, it is highly probable that Masis Mayilyan will get an
anticipated 35-40 percent, Armen Abgaryan may get 10 percent, the
other candidates will get some votes, and there will be a second
round. Because Masis Mayilyan's voters will not vote for Armen
Abgaryan. Let us wait for another day.
Will the "outside" help us?
Another "symptom" of this election is support from the outside. In
reality, there is no support. In most cases its absence is support.
The observers first ask about Armenia. Judging by public statements,
only the Armenian prime minister Sargsyan declared "our candidate
is Bako Sahakyan". President Kocharyan did not express his stance,
which by the way was perceived as a bad sign by some supporters of
Bako Sahakyan. Armenia's "support" was advertisement of Bako Sahakyan
on all the pro-government channels of Armenia.
As to Moscow, it is not seen anywhere. The only thing is that one of
the personal merits of Bako Sahakyan is said to be his "connections
with Moscow-based businesses".
Masis Mayilyan is said to have connections with the West. This question
is manipulated by a few people who make groundless accusations
against Masis Mayilyan. Perhaps these manipulations are due to the
participation of Gegham Baghdasaryan, the editor of the Demo which
is financed by a British organization, in Masis Mayilyan's team. In
addition, the accusations are confined to "their" receiving money
from the U.K. It is not clear from the articles that appear what
wrong things the "British spies" do. Besides, they forget to note
that there are a number of civil society activists in Bako Sahakyan's
team who started getting foreign grants earlier than the others. This
is evidence to political manipulations. Although it is not clear yet
what role the rumors about Masis Mayilyan's connections had, positive
or negative. For the government had proclaimed European integration
as a priority.
Why did everyone support the common candidate?
This question worries the observers. We who live in Karabakh are
already used to the idea that parties with different stances could
support the same candidate. People who are outside cannot understand
this. We were told that unification was for the sake of national
security. Is it so, the observers asked?
No, it is not, we answer naively. And there are several reasons.
First, if the national security of Karabakh was threatened, and
therefore we needed to come together, the government had the right
not to hold an election. It is set down in the Constitution that
no elections are held at martial law. And the martial law has been
prolonged until January 1, 2008. It means it is not a matter of danger.
For people who live in Karabakh it would even be unnatural if the
parliament forces did not have a common stance. The point is that
Karabakh has no opposition for some time now. At least, since the
parliamentary election no party was opposition in the legislature.
Therefore, there was no need to expect polarization of opinions.
Besides, the leaders of the parties have their interests - financial,
business or political. And in our country where there are no
major foreign investments, the inflow of international funds, legal
protection of property, connections with the government are the only
guarantee of success. Therefore, the leaders of the parties preferred
a predictable candidate. Therefore they supported. Otherwise, it
is difficult to understand why the parties which had agreed on the
general principles of development of the state beforehand, chose this
candidate whose program includes these principles.
To sum up
Despite the outcome of the election, there is already a major
advantage. First of all, people have a chance to discuss how to go
on. Second, the "size" of the administrative resource was revealed,
and it became known that it was extremely "stretched". For nobody
expected that democracy in Karabakh would be built in an hour or two.
It is impossible. It is only necessary to evaluate the past stage
and go on to the next.