Tweet
DID DEMOCRACY IN KARABAKH BENEFIT MUCH FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?
Naira Hayrumyan
Lragir, Armenia
July 25 2007
"We do not hold elections and build democracy for the international
community but for ourselves," stated President Ghukasyan. The
presidential candidates and voters endorsed this thesis.
After the voting everyone, including the international observers,
stated unanimously that the most democratic election by far was held
in Karabakh. Certainly, they had observed breaches but they said
that everything was OK. Obviously, the observers wanted Karabakh
to be considered as a democratic country. Did democracy in Karabakh
benefit much from the past presidential election?
Right and need for right
The people of Karabakh got a real right to choose during the past
election. There were at least two ways they could choose. One of
them was not to change anything essential and leave everything the
way it is; the second supposed fundamental reforms which would lead
to more effective public administration. The people of Karabakh chose
the first one.
Does this mean they had no right to choose? The problem is not the
right but the need for that right rather. The growing demand for the
right determined the development of democracy in the country.
Apparently, we do not need our rights and dignity to be protected by
the law but by someone rather. There is no need for several candidates
running in the election with equal opportunities but a favorite who is
known beforehand. There is no need for solution of crucial problems
of the country through public debates but a group of people. There
is no need for respect for people, not taking into account that it
is possible to cheat people with speeches about democracy.
Election and fraud
No election is held in the post-Soviet countries without fraud. When
there is no fraud, the results arouse doubt. A few cases of fraud even
legitimize the election. Everyone, however, even the international
observers passed by fraud so carefully as if the EU would refuse to
recognize the elections if they mentioned those facts. The failure
to mention the cases of wrongdoing harmed democracy more than fraud
itself.
Meanwhile, it was the first election in Karabakh when one of the
most powerful institutions started to work - the proxies. Perhaps
only during the election of the mayor of Stepanakert the proxies of
one of the candidates performed the role of a balance. At that time,
however, they only followed the pre-election process. This time the
proxies reported over half a hundred cases of fraud, by the way,
serious ones. It turned out, however, that our electoral system is
not ready for it. The commissions simply refused to register most
cases of fraud. The media which "enjoyed" the democratic election
also avoided mentioning complaints. Meanwhile, unpunished wrongdoing
is fertile ground for crimes.
Democracy and 85 percent
After all, the voters know how they voted. And if a considerable number
of voters voluntarily and consciously voted for the candidate they
preferred, but many more voters did not vote by their will. Some were
"persuaded", the former position of the present president "persuaded"
others, the third ones were intimidated. And those who used such
methods stained the election which was about to become democratic.
No doubt, Bako Sahakyan could get many enough votes without any
pressure and could win the election with an absolutely real result
of 50-55 percent. However, someone made a fuss on the eve of the
election that some people in the outside are making a world plot
against the government of Karabakh. Allegedly a horrible political
project named Masis Mayilyan was worked out somewhere and launched,
which was meant to divide the society and pose threat to Karabakh.
The political parties and the NGOs came together against this
project. Facing the "threat" of this project, Masis Mayilyan's
supporters were accused of almost high treason. Rumors were circulated
that the project is funded from somewhere, which will be highly
dangerous. Moreover, they said in case the project "failed", Masis
Mayilyan's supporters were ready for revolutionary methods. The
fear was so great that almost all the administrative resources were
used. Only the tanks were absent.
Fear did not allow making a realistic evaluation of the situation to
understand that it is just an election. And the person who believed it
is impossible to hold a fair election in the country used his right
to ballot and offer his considerable potential to people. The people
who decided to support him also thought that an election is an arena
for comparing the human and political potential of the candidates
and they supported the one they preferred.
Without this fear Bako Sahakyan would win with a normal 50-55 percent
and would not get the Soviet 85 percent.
As to the "horrible project", a calm week following the election will
confirm there was no plot, especially for a revolution, and someone's
imagination took a common election campaign of the strong candidate
for a plot.
Good evaluation and blow at democracy
When the international observers who are well aware of the situation
state that the voting was ideal, they strike democracy heavier
than the people who intimidated voters. People stop trusting real
evaluations. They start thinking that the current order does not
differ from the Soviet one when they said one thing, thought another
thing and yet did a third thing but evaluated it as "it should be".
And they stop respecting their own choice. Not one external foe may
strike democracy.
Of course, everything depends on what we compare with. It is possible
that compared with other unrecognized states or Turkmenistan our
election was really super democratic. However, as an Abkhazian
journalist said, "we set the benchmark too high". This is the right
thing, for either there is democracy or there is no democracy. And the
essence of it is that the person chooses the track for development
without any pressure. When a person is respected and not talked to
as a bad student.
Naira Hayrumyan
Lragir, Armenia
July 25 2007
"We do not hold elections and build democracy for the international
community but for ourselves," stated President Ghukasyan. The
presidential candidates and voters endorsed this thesis.
After the voting everyone, including the international observers,
stated unanimously that the most democratic election by far was held
in Karabakh. Certainly, they had observed breaches but they said
that everything was OK. Obviously, the observers wanted Karabakh
to be considered as a democratic country. Did democracy in Karabakh
benefit much from the past presidential election?
Right and need for right
The people of Karabakh got a real right to choose during the past
election. There were at least two ways they could choose. One of
them was not to change anything essential and leave everything the
way it is; the second supposed fundamental reforms which would lead
to more effective public administration. The people of Karabakh chose
the first one.
Does this mean they had no right to choose? The problem is not the
right but the need for that right rather. The growing demand for the
right determined the development of democracy in the country.
Apparently, we do not need our rights and dignity to be protected by
the law but by someone rather. There is no need for several candidates
running in the election with equal opportunities but a favorite who is
known beforehand. There is no need for solution of crucial problems
of the country through public debates but a group of people. There
is no need for respect for people, not taking into account that it
is possible to cheat people with speeches about democracy.
Election and fraud
No election is held in the post-Soviet countries without fraud. When
there is no fraud, the results arouse doubt. A few cases of fraud even
legitimize the election. Everyone, however, even the international
observers passed by fraud so carefully as if the EU would refuse to
recognize the elections if they mentioned those facts. The failure
to mention the cases of wrongdoing harmed democracy more than fraud
itself.
Meanwhile, it was the first election in Karabakh when one of the
most powerful institutions started to work - the proxies. Perhaps
only during the election of the mayor of Stepanakert the proxies of
one of the candidates performed the role of a balance. At that time,
however, they only followed the pre-election process. This time the
proxies reported over half a hundred cases of fraud, by the way,
serious ones. It turned out, however, that our electoral system is
not ready for it. The commissions simply refused to register most
cases of fraud. The media which "enjoyed" the democratic election
also avoided mentioning complaints. Meanwhile, unpunished wrongdoing
is fertile ground for crimes.
Democracy and 85 percent
After all, the voters know how they voted. And if a considerable number
of voters voluntarily and consciously voted for the candidate they
preferred, but many more voters did not vote by their will. Some were
"persuaded", the former position of the present president "persuaded"
others, the third ones were intimidated. And those who used such
methods stained the election which was about to become democratic.
No doubt, Bako Sahakyan could get many enough votes without any
pressure and could win the election with an absolutely real result
of 50-55 percent. However, someone made a fuss on the eve of the
election that some people in the outside are making a world plot
against the government of Karabakh. Allegedly a horrible political
project named Masis Mayilyan was worked out somewhere and launched,
which was meant to divide the society and pose threat to Karabakh.
The political parties and the NGOs came together against this
project. Facing the "threat" of this project, Masis Mayilyan's
supporters were accused of almost high treason. Rumors were circulated
that the project is funded from somewhere, which will be highly
dangerous. Moreover, they said in case the project "failed", Masis
Mayilyan's supporters were ready for revolutionary methods. The
fear was so great that almost all the administrative resources were
used. Only the tanks were absent.
Fear did not allow making a realistic evaluation of the situation to
understand that it is just an election. And the person who believed it
is impossible to hold a fair election in the country used his right
to ballot and offer his considerable potential to people. The people
who decided to support him also thought that an election is an arena
for comparing the human and political potential of the candidates
and they supported the one they preferred.
Without this fear Bako Sahakyan would win with a normal 50-55 percent
and would not get the Soviet 85 percent.
As to the "horrible project", a calm week following the election will
confirm there was no plot, especially for a revolution, and someone's
imagination took a common election campaign of the strong candidate
for a plot.
Good evaluation and blow at democracy
When the international observers who are well aware of the situation
state that the voting was ideal, they strike democracy heavier
than the people who intimidated voters. People stop trusting real
evaluations. They start thinking that the current order does not
differ from the Soviet one when they said one thing, thought another
thing and yet did a third thing but evaluated it as "it should be".
And they stop respecting their own choice. Not one external foe may
strike democracy.
Of course, everything depends on what we compare with. It is possible
that compared with other unrecognized states or Turkmenistan our
election was really super democratic. However, as an Abkhazian
journalist said, "we set the benchmark too high". This is the right
thing, for either there is democracy or there is no democracy. And the
essence of it is that the person chooses the track for development
without any pressure. When a person is respected and not talked to
as a bad student.