ARMENIA, YES, MAKE YOUR RIGHT CHOICE!

The parliamentary elections to be held on May 12 in Armenia will provide us with an opportunity to observe what has really changed in President Robert Kocharian’s country. On a couple of occasions in the past I served as an electoral observer in ex-Soviet countries. I saw how the notion of free and fair elections, the basic prerequisite of any democratic regime, was used as a kind of window dressing for the existing regimes. In that regard, neither the political systems nor the ruling elite differed much from those they replaced. The new regimes resembled the absolute monarchies of the 19th century, replacing the oppressive dictatorship of the Communist Party with that of presidents. The only exception was the emergence of big business tycoons, known as oligarchs, who, through their immense financial power, managed to manipulate the political realm. The prevailing system was not able to afford an alternative by peaceful means.The parliamentary elections to be held on May 12 will provide us with an opportunity to observe the extent to which this process has changed in President Robert Kocharian's Armenia. They will demonstrate the level of Armenian people's commitment to democracy and reform. As important as this trait is the regional significance of the election results. The parliamentary composition to emerge after May 12 will not only serve as a real pivot for the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process but also for Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. In a way, the beloved Armenian people will vote on whether to end their regional isolation or to further strengthen it.

  Tending to transform into dictatorship?:

  There are certain developments that make us think the political climate has indeed improved since the last elections. Just recently, the Election Observation Mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the pre-election delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) have announced that the improved election code provides “a solid foundation for the conduct of democratic elections.” Besides, Armenia's rising cooperation with the European Union within the framework of European Neighborhood Policy and its status as a beneficiary of the Millennium Challenge Account, a U.S. foreign aid program that imposes new prerequisites of democracy and electoral performance, are widely believed to be contingent on the conduct of fair and free elections.

  The enigma of grave importance is, however, to what extent the theory is at odds with reality. Or, as put by the PACE delegation, whether such changes as the election code will indeed be “fully implemented in good faith.” The Kocharian regime's tainted electoral record and the initial news coming out of Yerevan don't look promising. Artur Baghdasaryan, the chairman of the opposition Rule of Law Party, for instance, warned in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in February about “forces in the Armenian government that might try to steal the upcoming elections” and wisely added, “Who will win matters, but how they win matters more.” More importantly, the Armenian people seem to have lost faith in the notion of “clean” elections. According to a recent survey, 42 percent of those polled expressed the belief that the elections would be marred with as much election fraud as the previous one in 2003, whereas only 8 percent said they believe that the elections will meet international standards.An “opposition” doesn't seem to play an influential role in the elections. Independent analysts maintain that the main competition will rather be between two pro-Kocharian groupings, the ruling Republican Party of Armenia being on the one side and Prosperous Armenia, a party established last year by Gagik Tsarukian, a wealthy businessman with close ties to Kocharian, on the other. According to a survey conducted by the British Populus Opinion Polling Center, these two parties are expected to get the majority of votes: While 31 percent of the 2,000 Armenians polled said they would cast their ballots for the Republican Party of Armenia, 27 percent stated that they would vote for Prosperous Armenia.

  The aforementioned PACE delegation, too, reported that they were “not able, with a few notable exceptions, to discern marked differences between the political platforms of the contenders,” being left with the impression that “the upcoming elections [were] regarded by many as a struggle between political elites and not between concepts and ideas.” Later, they expressed their concern about the apparent lack of “a fully democratic choice.” In fact, herein lurks the real and rapidly growing danger. In February, the Kocharian regime was accused by Armenian intellectuals, in a declaration posted on the Internet, of acting like a tyranny that “keeps hardening, tending to transform into dictatorship.” Besides, they reiterated their concerns about the attitude of certain political organizations “towards those who practice free speech and generate new ideas in the Armenian reality.” It is in this regard that such a lack of checks and balances to emerge subsequent to the elections becomes more sensitive than ever.

  A democratic Armenia is what Turkey expects:

  The current state of affairs between Armenia and Turkey increasingly reminds me of two goats approaching each other from the opposite ends of a narrow bridge over a stream. Both choosing not to wait for the other to cross, they will eventually fall together. Actually, there is reciprocally an urgent need for new rhetoric but the current mentality as well as cunning considerations with regard to internal politics serve as a kind of brake pedal.

  This problem is pretty obviously more acute in Armenian politics. The Turkey factor seems to be an effective means for domestic political manipulations just before the elections, as part of a wider strategy based on popular fears among the Armenian public. One of Kocharian's recent statements precisely exemplifies this phenomenon. Speaking at a meeting with Armenian community groups in Paris in February, he was reported to have said that Turkey's failure to recognize the “Armenian genocide” was not just an ethical matter, but also a threat to Armenia's national security. “There is a risk that what happened could happen again,” he then ironically added. I don't think that Kocharian himself believes in what he asserted. The presence of at least other Armenian politicians like Baghdasaryan, in turn, is promising and worth considering. He obviously is someone to engage in sincere dialogue. “Much of Armenia's establishment remains trapped in the past, but dwelling on said memories hampers our relationship with our neighbors,” rightly argued Mr. Baghdasaryan in his op-ed mentioned above. Accordingly, the long-lasting conflict over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh must be resolved as a matter of urgency, since it indeed “dilutes Armenia's and the region's strategic value.” The extent to which relations with Turkey are healthily and freely discussed in Armenia is of crucial importance for the Turkish people as well. A democratic Armenia is surely in the interests of its neighbors. We in Turkey heartfeltly hope that our Armenian friends will do what an election slogan entering their homes through TV screens is urging: “Make your right choice!” Otherwise, we all will miss the train…