The old man who collects money for central heating in the Avan-Arindj district came to our door two days ago and joyfully announced, “You’re going to have central heating till March 15, and you only have to pay a little bit!”

“Why until March 15? Because of the election?” asked my son.
“Yes, son. You are lucky that the election is during the heating season,” said the man, mystifying my son, who will have the right to vote in two years.

“The opposition was not ready for a fair election”, declared the incumbent president, Robert Kocharyan, during an exclusive interview with the Public Television the other day. In response to the interviewer’s observation that this was the first time anybody had mentioned violations committed by the opposition, the candidate added, “They have been much more active in committing violations”. He mentioned in particular that on the night of February 19th, a Yerkrapah (Karabakh war veterans) faction, working with a criminal element, put pressure on the members of electoral commissions, disseminated leaflets, etc. Kocharyan revised this unusual explanation during a press conference the next day, saying that the government had not done anything to halt the violations by the opposition, because it was in favor of a truly free election. That is to say, that any interference by government on Election Day could have had the opposite effect, could have been misapprehended.

Meanwhile, this inaction for the sake of a “fair election”, could, for example, have been taken advantage of by the “the much more active” violation-committing opposition to, in its victory, bring about a deep and radical turn – 180 degrees back to communism, 90 degrees to the left to national-socialism, or a crazy 360 degree full circle toward chaos and civil war. Fortunately, the Communists do not wield much influence, and National-Socialism goes no further than theses of historical-cultural exclusiveness. Civil war is simply impossible, for our people are so “wise and aware” that they don’t forget about the danger of losing Karabakh and leaving the borders of the country defenseless. They don’t forget, but just in case, all of the power structures in the country issued statements to remind the straying rally-holders of these dangers. In the course of one day, one after another.

The candidates and their circles

Essentially, nobody says anymore that no matter what the results of the election are, we won’t give up power. Transparent ballot-boxes have been brought from abroad, the candidates have been allocated equal time for free advertising on state television, representatives of local NGOs have been able to register as observers after applying in writing. Even the tolerance toward the “ much more active” violations by the opposition is used, in its turn, to show that this government, in contrast to all previous governments, and in contrast to this opposition, “has always been ready” to accept the choice of the people, to tolerate not being reelected.

The confidence that people would vote for a government that had secured “such economic growth” in recent years, and the stability that reigned until the election campaign, was manifested both throughout the election campaign and after it. “The attitude of certain political forces in a country with such economic growth is simply incomprehensible…” and “the internal situation before and after the election campaign can’t be compared,” says Robert Kocharyan.

The threat of losing governmental levers, and consequently numerous legal and illegal privileges, and what is most important, losing its economic monopoly, always prompts his circle to be more aggressive then any presidential candidate himself, more intolerant than even the most extremist opposition. Every five years, battles to the death, which cannot always be kept within the narrow limits of the government, are zealously conducted inArmenia.

Is Kocharyan’s circle ready to hand over power “ for the sake of a free and fair election?” Of course not, and it is easy to find proof. “Look who’s in the current challenger’s inner circle,” says the government circle, “People from the ranks of the former regime, people who took advantage of the levers of power to get rich, and now have lost out.” And nobody mentions that, for example, Aram Sargissyan, “who lost the cement factory” was appointed prime minister by this very president, and was appointed with the explanation that he was the brother of the assassinated prime minister, Vazgen Sargissyan. Solely. So it’s natural that now people will vote for the person who is the son of the assassinated Karen Demirchyan. And it is not important that these people frequently confuse Stepan with Karen, and refer to one with the other’s name. But they use the same zeal with which they defended the appointment of Aram Sargissyan to now criticize why people vote for Stepan Demirchyan. Only because he is the son of Karen Demirchyan.

Was Kocharyan really ready for an election that could be won, following the precedent of succession to power set by Kocharyan himself, by Stepan Demirchyan? A man who in his position as president, will, in the first place, open the entire examination of the October 27th case for re-evaluation, and will attempt to find the answers to the questions that torment him personally.

Of course he wasn’t ready, and he wasn’t ready not because he was guilty for that bloody Wednesday, but because he sowed among us accusations against the former regime, without any discrimination, and the dangerous habit of branding all those who criticize him “the former regime”. And if, in fact, “the ears of the former regime are sticking out” behind the current opposition, then does this mean that in that regime there was never anyone who never stole, who served honestly, who held onto his post and joined Kocharyan’s team?

The opposition, which has not accepted the results of the first round, was able to bring tens of thousands of people out into the streets. Of course, some of them are just onlookers. Some are people who really voted for a man who has no experience in politics, pinning their hopes on his genetic makeup. The third group is people brought from the regions to guarantee the headcount, and the fourth is the electorate of those candidates who either refused to participate in the election from the beginning or lost in the first round. In a word, they represent very different segments of society. And consequently, those people are right who say that the government, which made stability and development their main calling card in this campaign, should rather have thought about the main factors that prompted so many voters to take to the streets in support of a man with no experience. Either not many people understand what the economic growth and stability are, or this growth and stability are just propagandistic illusions.

In any case, the results of the March 5th election won’t answer these questions.