Tweet
AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE
The Economist
Nov 14 2013
Nov 14th 2013, 11:35 by G.E. | TBILISI
THE results of presidential elections in Georgia, Armenia and
Azerbaijan in 2013 provided few surprises. Giorgi Margvelashvili, the
candidate of Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili's Georgian Dream party,
won his first term as president on October 27th; Serzh Sarkisian won a
second term in Armenia on February 18th; and Ilham Aliyev swept to his
third consecutive term in Azerbaijan on October 9th. Yet the elections
themselves revealed much about the state of democracy in each country.
The good news is that external monitors described "efficiently
administered, transparent" elections in Georgia that "took place in
an" amicable and constructive environment". "Georgia's democracy is
maturing", concluded the head of one observer mission.
Yet recent constitutional reforms mean that the position of president
is now less important than that of prime minister. Because Mr
Ivanishvili is stepping down from power in the coming weeks, he
announced on November 2nd that the next prime minister (subject
to parliamentary confirmation) would be the 31-year-old Irakli
Garibashvili, the interior minister, who is one of his long-time
employees.
Mr Ivanishvili says he will take a back-seat once retired from office
and focus on developing civil society. He denies that he will pull
the government's strings from behind the scenes. Many doubt this. The
uncharismatic new president and future prime minister owe their
entire political careers to Mr Ivanishvili. Georgia's new political
kingmaker is also the country's most generous philanthropist and
largest individual investor: that leaves too much power in the
hands of one man. Observers also fear that the possible arrest of
the outgoing president, Mikheil Saakashvili, would discourage future
leaders from stepping down when their terms expire, and damage the
country's European aspirations.
With one candidate shot shortly before election day, and another
going on hunger strike in protest of the results, Armenia's election
provided plenty of drama. Several influential opposition groups chose
not to participate, citing the likelihood of fraud by the ruling party,
the Republic Party of Armenia. External monitors noted a suspicious
"correlation between very high turnout and the number of votes for
the incumbent". Opposition activists alleged ballot-box stuffing,
voter bribes and other shortcomings.
With the ruling party's victories in the parliamentary election in 2012
and the Yerevan mayoral election in May this year, its dominance has
inspired more apathy than rage. Opposition protests at the results
of the presidential election petered out and there was no repetition
of the violence and loss of life that occurred when the authorities
dispersed protesters after the presidential election in 2008. Public
discontent continues, as demonstrations last week and over the summer
showed. But confronted with mass unemployment, corruption, and an
unresolved conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh at home, many Armenians
prefer to vote with their feet and emigrate.
Azerbaijan's presidential election on October 9th provided even more
reasons for concern. In the pre-election period there was evidence of
a systematic crackdown on government critics. Monitors from the Office
for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), part of the
Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), identified
"serious problems" at all stages of election day, particularly
vote-counting (where elections can be most easily falsified).
America's State Department sounded a similar warning note. Local
journalists and observers posted videos of election abuse on YouTube.
Yet astonishingly, 49 other election monitoring outfits gave the vote
a clean bill of health.
The question is who can be trusted. As a new report from the European
Stability Initiative (ESI) points out, ODIHR's transparent methodology,
mandate and resources give it credibility. 319 ODIHR monitors observed
more than one-fifth of the country's polling stations, and oversaw
counting in over three-quarters of the election commissions. Yet the
other monitoring bodies disregarded its findings.
Those outfits need closer scrutiny. A large delegation from the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) also monitored the vote. Yet
CIS monitors have a history of endorsing controversial elections in
its member states, which include Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, a number of
European bodies, including the European Parliament, sent much smaller
delegations that lacked a systematic methodology. Some challenged
ODIHR's competence on the absurd grounds that only professional
politicians can know how elections work. Senior ODIHR staff claim
their critics are whitewashing electoral fraud.
Azerbaijan has a history of trying to seduce reputable foreign bodies
to give international legitimacy to its repressive behaviour at home.
Some notable exceptions aside, too few of them have been pushing the
regime in Baku to change its ways.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2013/11/democracy-caucasus
From: Baghdasarian
The Economist
Nov 14 2013
Nov 14th 2013, 11:35 by G.E. | TBILISI
THE results of presidential elections in Georgia, Armenia and
Azerbaijan in 2013 provided few surprises. Giorgi Margvelashvili, the
candidate of Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili's Georgian Dream party,
won his first term as president on October 27th; Serzh Sarkisian won a
second term in Armenia on February 18th; and Ilham Aliyev swept to his
third consecutive term in Azerbaijan on October 9th. Yet the elections
themselves revealed much about the state of democracy in each country.
The good news is that external monitors described "efficiently
administered, transparent" elections in Georgia that "took place in
an" amicable and constructive environment". "Georgia's democracy is
maturing", concluded the head of one observer mission.
Yet recent constitutional reforms mean that the position of president
is now less important than that of prime minister. Because Mr
Ivanishvili is stepping down from power in the coming weeks, he
announced on November 2nd that the next prime minister (subject
to parliamentary confirmation) would be the 31-year-old Irakli
Garibashvili, the interior minister, who is one of his long-time
employees.
Mr Ivanishvili says he will take a back-seat once retired from office
and focus on developing civil society. He denies that he will pull
the government's strings from behind the scenes. Many doubt this. The
uncharismatic new president and future prime minister owe their
entire political careers to Mr Ivanishvili. Georgia's new political
kingmaker is also the country's most generous philanthropist and
largest individual investor: that leaves too much power in the
hands of one man. Observers also fear that the possible arrest of
the outgoing president, Mikheil Saakashvili, would discourage future
leaders from stepping down when their terms expire, and damage the
country's European aspirations.
With one candidate shot shortly before election day, and another
going on hunger strike in protest of the results, Armenia's election
provided plenty of drama. Several influential opposition groups chose
not to participate, citing the likelihood of fraud by the ruling party,
the Republic Party of Armenia. External monitors noted a suspicious
"correlation between very high turnout and the number of votes for
the incumbent". Opposition activists alleged ballot-box stuffing,
voter bribes and other shortcomings.
With the ruling party's victories in the parliamentary election in 2012
and the Yerevan mayoral election in May this year, its dominance has
inspired more apathy than rage. Opposition protests at the results
of the presidential election petered out and there was no repetition
of the violence and loss of life that occurred when the authorities
dispersed protesters after the presidential election in 2008. Public
discontent continues, as demonstrations last week and over the summer
showed. But confronted with mass unemployment, corruption, and an
unresolved conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh at home, many Armenians
prefer to vote with their feet and emigrate.
Azerbaijan's presidential election on October 9th provided even more
reasons for concern. In the pre-election period there was evidence of
a systematic crackdown on government critics. Monitors from the Office
for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), part of the
Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), identified
"serious problems" at all stages of election day, particularly
vote-counting (where elections can be most easily falsified).
America's State Department sounded a similar warning note. Local
journalists and observers posted videos of election abuse on YouTube.
Yet astonishingly, 49 other election monitoring outfits gave the vote
a clean bill of health.
The question is who can be trusted. As a new report from the European
Stability Initiative (ESI) points out, ODIHR's transparent methodology,
mandate and resources give it credibility. 319 ODIHR monitors observed
more than one-fifth of the country's polling stations, and oversaw
counting in over three-quarters of the election commissions. Yet the
other monitoring bodies disregarded its findings.
Those outfits need closer scrutiny. A large delegation from the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) also monitored the vote. Yet
CIS monitors have a history of endorsing controversial elections in
its member states, which include Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, a number of
European bodies, including the European Parliament, sent much smaller
delegations that lacked a systematic methodology. Some challenged
ODIHR's competence on the absurd grounds that only professional
politicians can know how elections work. Senior ODIHR staff claim
their critics are whitewashing electoral fraud.
Azerbaijan has a history of trying to seduce reputable foreign bodies
to give international legitimacy to its repressive behaviour at home.
Some notable exceptions aside, too few of them have been pushing the
regime in Baku to change its ways.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2013/11/democracy-caucasus
From: Baghdasarian