!�="justify">As a result of presidential elections in Armenia, the third president of this country has become Prime Minister Serg Sarkisian. Sarkisian was the successor to the old authorities and Kocharian in particular. Both are from Karabakh, in this case coming to power Sarkisian was also guarantee the continuation of the course of governance and the interests of the Karabakh clan.

oace Ter-Petrossian, who explained their accusations that the current authority with their actions only worsens the plight of the country and not in its policies in the name of Armenia, but for the sake of their own interests.

The results of elections in Armenia can be analyzed from two perspectives: on the one hand through comparison with similar election conducted in the countries, the post-Soviet space, on the other, identifying the distinctive features of the electoral process in Armenia.

Sarkisian, as a member of the current government, and thus have the opportunity to use the extensive public resource, in the end, was elected the new President of Armenia. The transition of power to the receiver, widely used in the post-Soviet space, including in Russia, was also implemented in Armenia. In principle, this fact is rather typical, than specific.

The transition from one authority to another in the post-Soviet space interrupted only in two cases: when, immediately after independence, in some states, using the general confusion have came reactionary forces. An example of this Gamsakhurdiya serves regimes in Georgia; Elchibey in Azerbaijan may be shown. However, referring to the lack of experience in the state ruling and existed domestic political chaos, the return to power previous leaders of these republics, during the Soviet period with enormous experience of government. Other regimes that came after collapsing of the Soviet Union under the force-major circumstances might also be included governments of Ter-Petrosian in Armenia and Yeltsin in Russia. But these two leaders for many reasons have been forced to resign, never having completed their legal deadline of government, also appointing a successor to their seats of power.

Another case is the so-called "velvet revolutions" after which new regimes have come to power in such countries as Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. But whether changing of leader in Kyrgyzstan occurred early in the wake of developments in Georgia and Ukraine, than with the support of the "outside", in the last two cases, countries had clearly felt the support of Western countries, mainly the United States.

However, even in these cases, “non-standard” abandonment chain management countries with one team have its loopholes. So the new leaders of all three countries have experience of government in previous regimes, holding any positions in the government. In other words, the "new" regimes also failed to come to power from the outside, but were part of the nomenclature of previous commands. Furthermore, the new government time to take root in power and already own an interest in turn of the conversation of their regimes: so Saakashvili was re-elected for a second term, and President Yushchenko appointed to the post of Prime Minister Timoshenko, his fellow at the recent "Orange Revolution".

In short, some countries of the former Soviet Union have experience to implement practice of the transfer of power to a successor. It will be applied in the future again especially to the countries of Central Asia, where some leaders remain in power from Soviet times.

Referring specifically Armenia, in my earlier comment on Turkishweekly "Presidential Elections in Armenia and Its Uniqueness" dated February 8, 2008, I have noted that non-standard provisions in the country after the nomination of Ter-Petrossian his candidacy for the presidency of this country. This step completely changed the situation in the country and the electoral process has withdrawn from the formal transition of power to a successor to the intransigent confrontation between the government and opposition supporters of Ter-Petrossian.

Ter-Petrosian has experience in governance and a politician who could consolidate the opposition forces. That is what happened in Armenia, where tens of thousands of supporters of Ter-Petrosian immediately took to the streets in support of their candidate. Situation has changed to the fact that the authorities had to resort to force to disperse the demonstrators, resulting in accordance to the official figures with 8 killed people. The authorities have imposed censorship on the information, even limiting access to the Internet. The situation remains unstable.

As the situation Sarkisian be able to retain power and become the next President of Armenia. This is due primarily to the fact that Ter-Petrosian has not received the support of Western countries, and the demonstrations did not escalate into another "a color revolution". Incidentally Ter-Petrosian has already been publicly accuse the West that they did not support the democratic forces in Armenia, thereby helped advance the liberal values in the country.

Now in Armenia is relatively silent. Perhaps soon Sarkisian will receive from the powers of the President Kocharian, but not stable governance, which was in the time of Kocharian. The current government should realize that in today's Armenia there is a strong opposition and a strong leader who will not fall behind. So, Sarkisian regime will therefore be respected to the reality.