Tweet
IS KOCHARYAN RETURNING?
by Sergey Markedonov
Politkom.ru
March 25 2010
Russia
There is no tradition in the history of the new independent CIS states
of presidents returning to greater politics. Heads of state who have
left their posts have usually sought to comply with the principle of
"when you go, you go". This is not, of course, about the tactics
of "minor rule-breaking", when a head of state who has left his
post periodically gives his view on "a set topic" and corrects and
criticizes the government in pensioner style, that is in a detached
manner and with no aspiration to correct the mistakes made. By return
we mean involvement in regular political processes (elections, mass
action, the whole spectrum of public activity). Only a handful of
people have made such a return to politics.
Fate has not favoured some of the heads of the post-Soviet states. The
first presidents of Georgia and Azerbaijan, Zviad Gamsakhurdia and
Ayaz Mutalibov, respectively, were overthrown. And while the first
of them tried to return to power through a civil war, the second
entered the category of political emigres. The first president
of independent Tajikistan, Rahmon Nabiyev, died in April 1993 in
suspicious circumstances at a time when his country was plunged into
the chaos and bloodshed of a fratricidal civil war.
Mikhail Gorbachev, the first and last president of another state,
the USSR, took part in the 1996 Russian presidential election,
however his modest 0.51 per cent and overall seventh place meant
he moved into a different category of political figures. He became
the living embodiment of the era of changes. The first president of
Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk, who lost in the second round of the pre-term
presidential election in 1994, did not attempt to gain the main post
in the country again. He stood as a deputy to the Verkhovna Rada,
drew attention to himself with notorious scandals, however he was
dislodged from the higher league of national politics. His successor
Leonid Kuchma, who left his post in 2005, behaved much more quietly and
modestly in comparison with his predecessor. His name was mentioned
in the press in the first instance in the context of him being
granted/stripped of the benefits to which he was entitled in line with
his status. The now deceased first president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin,
and the second president of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze, behaved in
the style of political patriarchs. Moderate criticism of the acting
government, not too emotional, without excess or fanaticism. Like
a teacher might "correct" a pupil, even if the pupil is to a
certain extent copying the style of his mentor. Abulfaz Elchibey,
the second president of Azerbaijan, returned to politics in a halo
of scandal. At a news conference in November 1998, he accused the
Azerbaijani president at the time, Heydar Aliyev, of involvement in
creating the Kurdistan Workers' Party (which is considered a terrorist
organization in Turkey). And although a criminal case was instigated
against Elchibey, Heydar Aliyev attended his funeral after his death
in August 2000.
In this list of political "returnees", a special place rightfully
belongs to the former presidents of Armenia. It is in this country that
a former president has not just returned to politics and has not just
criticized the acting government, but has taken part in elections at
various levels (the presidential campaign, election to the capital's
municipal parliament), gaining 19-21 per cent of the vote.
And today the country's first president, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, is the
leader of the largest opposition association, the Armenian National
Congress (ANC), which holds regular rallies and protest actions and
cooperates with a wide range of international organizations. Thus,
it is impossible even today to imagine Armenia's internal political
life without its first president (who was silent for 10 years and
returned to the big league of Armenian politics).
Was his example infectious to his successor, Robert Kocharyan, or
did the second president of Armenia have his own motivation, and
it is just that he also switched to active operations, both inside
the country and beyond its boundaries. Kocharyan worked in the post
of president of Armenia for ten years (March 1998-March 2008.). He
travelled down the road to the highest post in Yerevan via Karabakh
where he was promoted to leading roles during the armed conflict
with Azerbaijan, becoming first the chairman of the State Defence
Committee (GKO) with broad powers, and then also the president of
the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. From March 1997-March
1998, he occupied the post of Armenian prime minister. The events of
"bloody Saturday" on 1 March 2008, when Kocharyan showed that he was
able to withstand blows and that he was in his element in head-on
clashes with his opponents, was his presidential finale.
In an interview to the Mediamaks agency on 23 March this year (you
honestly start to think about this month's special role in the life of
politicians) he condemned the current economic policy of the republic's
government. As befits any true politician, he took economic development
"under him" as an example for comparison. In Kocharian's view, crises
needed to be prepared for well in advance. "However, this is not done
by curbing economic development but by developing reserves, reducing
public debt and budget deficits, and diversifying trade," Armenia's
second president stressed. According to Kocharyan's data, during
"his years" average annual inflation was 2-4 per cent, and the ratio
of foreign debt to domestic product fell from 46 per cent to 13 per
cent. Kocharyan also gives himself credit for increasing the republic's
gold and foreign currency reserves. In general, a picture is painted
like Hesiod's where "the people lived like gods". Kocharian sees
maintaining high demand for housing as a solution to the crisis. And
although many professional economists have noted serious exaggerations
in Kocharyan's assessments (they do not take into account the impact
of the global financial crisis on the republic), let us note that
for a politician turning to socio-economic indicators is one of the
tools for advancing their aims. And that is how he differs from an
academic economist or an expert or an applied scientist.
However, the economic direction is not the exclusive sphere where
the efforts of the second Armenian president are focused. He recently
visited France and Iran, two states that are of priority significance
for Yerevan in Europe and the Middle East. In the first case, this
is a country that is co-chairing the Minsk Group, a state that has
recognized the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire, and that has
the largest diaspora in the EU. In the second, we have a country,
with a direct border with Armenia (as well as having an outlet onto
territory under the control of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic) and
which is one of the country's two land windows onto the world.
Moreover, both of these visits preceded official visits by Armenia's
third president, Serge Sarkisian.
Which forces might have a vested interest in Robert Kocharyan's
fully-fledged return and which, on the contrary, would like his
"definitive resignation". Representatives of Armenia's oldest party,
Dashnaktsutyun, have shown a significant interest in his return. A
party representative, Artyush Shakhbazyan, stated at a news conference
on 24 March 2010: "Kocharyan one of those people who have an excellent
knowledge of all the state intrigues and his words need to be heeded in
any case, especially since he has something to say." Armen Rustamyan,
one of Shakhbazyan's party colleagues, had previously compared
Armenia's foreign policy under Kocharyan and Serge Sarkisyan, and it
did not favour the current leader. In the view of the Dashnaktsutyun
members, the current government does not take into account the opinion
of the Karabakh community itself on Karabakh.
However, Dashnaktsyutyun and Kocharyan have their own interesting
history of relations. After Dashnaktsyutyun began to operate legally
in post-Soviet Armenia (in the Soviet period they were the target of
official propaganda, as "a bourgeois-nationalist force") the party's
activities were banned by decree of Levon Ter-Petrosyan in 1994, and
some of its leaders were arrested, accused of terrorist activities. In
1998, Kocharyan resuscitated the legal activities of Dashnaktsyutyun.
It was under him that they became part of the ruling coalition,
and his tough foreign policy towards Turkey (attempts at "detente"
made by Ter-Petrosyan in the 1990s were discontinued) was welcomed by
Dashnaktsyutyun. And although Dashnaktsyutyun and Kocharyan were not
"twin brothers" and it would not be correct to equate them completely,
the interest of this part of Armenia's political spectrum, which
remains the "curator of the brand" (like the CPRF in Russia), in the
second president personally is great.
The attitude of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia towards
Kocharyan's new initiatives is one of cautious interest. On the one
hand, some of its representatives speak about the need to discuss
"any constructive proposal" by the former head of state, while others
are expressing moderate scepticism. Thus, Razmik Zograbyan, the deputy
chairman of the Republican Party of Armenia, stated: "There is no need
for a return by the former president. If such a need arises, we will
turn to him. I think that both the Republican Party and the coalition
have enough strength today to implement their campaign programmes,
and a new person is not needed." There are reasons for such a cautious
stance. Any successor, even of the most powerful predecessor, strives
to play an independent role on entering the highest political office.
And overt competition is not too advantageous to him. The activation of
his political project "a Flourishing Armenia" (which has not completely
fulfilled the hopes placed on it during the 2007 parliamentary
elections), which is part of the ruling coalition but ventures into
disputes with ministers of the republic's current government headed
by Tigran Sargsyan, also indicates that Kocharyan will return.
The opposition forces' opinion (the ANC, the Heritage parliamentary
faction) of a return by Robert Kocharyan is extremely negative. At
a rally devoted to the two-year anniversary of the events of 1 March
2008, Levon Ter-Petrosyan demanded a "Hague Tribunal" for Kocharyan
and Heritage representatives stated that they could see no fundamental
difference between the regime of Armenia's second president and the
current regime. Be that as it may, the prospects of Kocharyan's return
to the post of head of the republic's government are being discussed,
although back in 2008 Armenia's current president, Serge Sarkisyan,
said that the option of a "Russian reshuffle" would not take place
in Yerevan.
In any case, however the destiny of Armenia's second president
develops, he has been able to get the Armenian political community
talking about him again. Either discussing his prospects as "prime
minister", or talking about forming a new configuration of political
forces, or arguing about how to involve Kocharyan in foreign policy
projects. Another factor of some importance is that the topic of his
"return" has become a popular one in the Azerbaijani media, where
Kocharyan has already been compared to Vladimir Putin and called
"the country's real boss". Kocharyan of course has much experience
and the ability to withstand blows. However, is this enough for him
to occupy a special place on the overly occupied political field of
Armenia? If the second president of the republic really does decide
to follow the example of the first, then the Armenian political cards
will be shuffled well.
by Sergey Markedonov
Politkom.ru
March 25 2010
Russia
There is no tradition in the history of the new independent CIS states
of presidents returning to greater politics. Heads of state who have
left their posts have usually sought to comply with the principle of
"when you go, you go". This is not, of course, about the tactics
of "minor rule-breaking", when a head of state who has left his
post periodically gives his view on "a set topic" and corrects and
criticizes the government in pensioner style, that is in a detached
manner and with no aspiration to correct the mistakes made. By return
we mean involvement in regular political processes (elections, mass
action, the whole spectrum of public activity). Only a handful of
people have made such a return to politics.
Fate has not favoured some of the heads of the post-Soviet states. The
first presidents of Georgia and Azerbaijan, Zviad Gamsakhurdia and
Ayaz Mutalibov, respectively, were overthrown. And while the first
of them tried to return to power through a civil war, the second
entered the category of political emigres. The first president
of independent Tajikistan, Rahmon Nabiyev, died in April 1993 in
suspicious circumstances at a time when his country was plunged into
the chaos and bloodshed of a fratricidal civil war.
Mikhail Gorbachev, the first and last president of another state,
the USSR, took part in the 1996 Russian presidential election,
however his modest 0.51 per cent and overall seventh place meant
he moved into a different category of political figures. He became
the living embodiment of the era of changes. The first president of
Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk, who lost in the second round of the pre-term
presidential election in 1994, did not attempt to gain the main post
in the country again. He stood as a deputy to the Verkhovna Rada,
drew attention to himself with notorious scandals, however he was
dislodged from the higher league of national politics. His successor
Leonid Kuchma, who left his post in 2005, behaved much more quietly and
modestly in comparison with his predecessor. His name was mentioned
in the press in the first instance in the context of him being
granted/stripped of the benefits to which he was entitled in line with
his status. The now deceased first president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin,
and the second president of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze, behaved in
the style of political patriarchs. Moderate criticism of the acting
government, not too emotional, without excess or fanaticism. Like
a teacher might "correct" a pupil, even if the pupil is to a
certain extent copying the style of his mentor. Abulfaz Elchibey,
the second president of Azerbaijan, returned to politics in a halo
of scandal. At a news conference in November 1998, he accused the
Azerbaijani president at the time, Heydar Aliyev, of involvement in
creating the Kurdistan Workers' Party (which is considered a terrorist
organization in Turkey). And although a criminal case was instigated
against Elchibey, Heydar Aliyev attended his funeral after his death
in August 2000.
In this list of political "returnees", a special place rightfully
belongs to the former presidents of Armenia. It is in this country that
a former president has not just returned to politics and has not just
criticized the acting government, but has taken part in elections at
various levels (the presidential campaign, election to the capital's
municipal parliament), gaining 19-21 per cent of the vote.
And today the country's first president, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, is the
leader of the largest opposition association, the Armenian National
Congress (ANC), which holds regular rallies and protest actions and
cooperates with a wide range of international organizations. Thus,
it is impossible even today to imagine Armenia's internal political
life without its first president (who was silent for 10 years and
returned to the big league of Armenian politics).
Was his example infectious to his successor, Robert Kocharyan, or
did the second president of Armenia have his own motivation, and
it is just that he also switched to active operations, both inside
the country and beyond its boundaries. Kocharyan worked in the post
of president of Armenia for ten years (March 1998-March 2008.). He
travelled down the road to the highest post in Yerevan via Karabakh
where he was promoted to leading roles during the armed conflict
with Azerbaijan, becoming first the chairman of the State Defence
Committee (GKO) with broad powers, and then also the president of
the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. From March 1997-March
1998, he occupied the post of Armenian prime minister. The events of
"bloody Saturday" on 1 March 2008, when Kocharyan showed that he was
able to withstand blows and that he was in his element in head-on
clashes with his opponents, was his presidential finale.
In an interview to the Mediamaks agency on 23 March this year (you
honestly start to think about this month's special role in the life of
politicians) he condemned the current economic policy of the republic's
government. As befits any true politician, he took economic development
"under him" as an example for comparison. In Kocharian's view, crises
needed to be prepared for well in advance. "However, this is not done
by curbing economic development but by developing reserves, reducing
public debt and budget deficits, and diversifying trade," Armenia's
second president stressed. According to Kocharyan's data, during
"his years" average annual inflation was 2-4 per cent, and the ratio
of foreign debt to domestic product fell from 46 per cent to 13 per
cent. Kocharyan also gives himself credit for increasing the republic's
gold and foreign currency reserves. In general, a picture is painted
like Hesiod's where "the people lived like gods". Kocharian sees
maintaining high demand for housing as a solution to the crisis. And
although many professional economists have noted serious exaggerations
in Kocharyan's assessments (they do not take into account the impact
of the global financial crisis on the republic), let us note that
for a politician turning to socio-economic indicators is one of the
tools for advancing their aims. And that is how he differs from an
academic economist or an expert or an applied scientist.
However, the economic direction is not the exclusive sphere where
the efforts of the second Armenian president are focused. He recently
visited France and Iran, two states that are of priority significance
for Yerevan in Europe and the Middle East. In the first case, this
is a country that is co-chairing the Minsk Group, a state that has
recognized the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire, and that has
the largest diaspora in the EU. In the second, we have a country,
with a direct border with Armenia (as well as having an outlet onto
territory under the control of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic) and
which is one of the country's two land windows onto the world.
Moreover, both of these visits preceded official visits by Armenia's
third president, Serge Sarkisian.
Which forces might have a vested interest in Robert Kocharyan's
fully-fledged return and which, on the contrary, would like his
"definitive resignation". Representatives of Armenia's oldest party,
Dashnaktsutyun, have shown a significant interest in his return. A
party representative, Artyush Shakhbazyan, stated at a news conference
on 24 March 2010: "Kocharyan one of those people who have an excellent
knowledge of all the state intrigues and his words need to be heeded in
any case, especially since he has something to say." Armen Rustamyan,
one of Shakhbazyan's party colleagues, had previously compared
Armenia's foreign policy under Kocharyan and Serge Sarkisyan, and it
did not favour the current leader. In the view of the Dashnaktsutyun
members, the current government does not take into account the opinion
of the Karabakh community itself on Karabakh.
However, Dashnaktsyutyun and Kocharyan have their own interesting
history of relations. After Dashnaktsyutyun began to operate legally
in post-Soviet Armenia (in the Soviet period they were the target of
official propaganda, as "a bourgeois-nationalist force") the party's
activities were banned by decree of Levon Ter-Petrosyan in 1994, and
some of its leaders were arrested, accused of terrorist activities. In
1998, Kocharyan resuscitated the legal activities of Dashnaktsyutyun.
It was under him that they became part of the ruling coalition,
and his tough foreign policy towards Turkey (attempts at "detente"
made by Ter-Petrosyan in the 1990s were discontinued) was welcomed by
Dashnaktsyutyun. And although Dashnaktsyutyun and Kocharyan were not
"twin brothers" and it would not be correct to equate them completely,
the interest of this part of Armenia's political spectrum, which
remains the "curator of the brand" (like the CPRF in Russia), in the
second president personally is great.
The attitude of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia towards
Kocharyan's new initiatives is one of cautious interest. On the one
hand, some of its representatives speak about the need to discuss
"any constructive proposal" by the former head of state, while others
are expressing moderate scepticism. Thus, Razmik Zograbyan, the deputy
chairman of the Republican Party of Armenia, stated: "There is no need
for a return by the former president. If such a need arises, we will
turn to him. I think that both the Republican Party and the coalition
have enough strength today to implement their campaign programmes,
and a new person is not needed." There are reasons for such a cautious
stance. Any successor, even of the most powerful predecessor, strives
to play an independent role on entering the highest political office.
And overt competition is not too advantageous to him. The activation of
his political project "a Flourishing Armenia" (which has not completely
fulfilled the hopes placed on it during the 2007 parliamentary
elections), which is part of the ruling coalition but ventures into
disputes with ministers of the republic's current government headed
by Tigran Sargsyan, also indicates that Kocharyan will return.
The opposition forces' opinion (the ANC, the Heritage parliamentary
faction) of a return by Robert Kocharyan is extremely negative. At
a rally devoted to the two-year anniversary of the events of 1 March
2008, Levon Ter-Petrosyan demanded a "Hague Tribunal" for Kocharyan
and Heritage representatives stated that they could see no fundamental
difference between the regime of Armenia's second president and the
current regime. Be that as it may, the prospects of Kocharyan's return
to the post of head of the republic's government are being discussed,
although back in 2008 Armenia's current president, Serge Sarkisyan,
said that the option of a "Russian reshuffle" would not take place
in Yerevan.
In any case, however the destiny of Armenia's second president
develops, he has been able to get the Armenian political community
talking about him again. Either discussing his prospects as "prime
minister", or talking about forming a new configuration of political
forces, or arguing about how to involve Kocharyan in foreign policy
projects. Another factor of some importance is that the topic of his
"return" has become a popular one in the Azerbaijani media, where
Kocharyan has already been compared to Vladimir Putin and called
"the country's real boss". Kocharyan of course has much experience
and the ability to withstand blows. However, is this enough for him
to occupy a special place on the overly occupied political field of
Armenia? If the second president of the republic really does decide
to follow the example of the first, then the Armenian political cards
will be shuffled well.