A few thoughts on the presidential election in Armenia on February 18, 2013; A report to the Steering Committee of the Civil Society Forum.

The recent presidential election in Armenia exhibited many features common to a post-communist state in transition to a democratic form of government. The election begs the question if the transition to a functioning democracy will be successful in Armenia or if democratic institutions will become a pure façade. If the latter happens then society will face the choice of either rebelling to replace its rulers or acquiescing in rule by governments which lacks democratic legitimacy.

The election saw a mixture of social activity which reflects the democratic experience of the past two decades and pressure from external actors who are promoting democratic values such as the European Union or the United States. But it also showed the continuing influence of behavior patterns formed in Soviet times which are still present both in government and society at large and which threaten the country’s democratic evolution.

A narrow field

The election campaign saw a field of eight candidates including the present incumbent but lacked the participation of important political parties such as Prosperous Armenia (PA), formerly allied with the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), and the Armenian National Congress (ANC), a coalition of opposition parties, both of which failed to field a candidate. It remains unclear why PA, a party associated with rich business people, chose not to run, but objectively the decision strengthened the incumbent’s position in the election. The ANC and the Armenian Revolutionary Party (ARF), another opposition party, decided not to run, arguing that the election would not be fair and that there was no point in participating. This in effect left the field to Serz Sargsyan (RPA), the incumbent, and his main challenger Raffi Hovannisian, the leader of the Heritage Party (HP). Pre-election opinion polls showed these two politicians to be the two main contestants.

Insipid Campaign

Both lead candidates held campaign meetings. These differed in style with Serz Sargsyan choosing a more formal style of addressing the electorate at meetings, while the Californian born Raffi Hovannisian favored direct contacts with the voters,  adding  ‘the walk about ’ methods adopted by western politicians. There were almost no campaign posters and few campaign leaflets in evidence and all the candidates relied on media coverage to reach voters. Media monitoring by the Yerevan Press Club, a CSF member, showed the coverage to be fair and balanced. There were no debates between the main candidates.

Candidates fight the local government machine - the other contest

By all accounts, the opposition candidates found themselves fighting not only against each other but against the country’s local government machine which was mobilized to support the incumbent president. This was a throwback to Soviet times when there was little distinction between the Communist party and the State administration. Then, the authorities worked at election times to persuade the population to vote as an outward sign of loyalty. In this election in Armenia the aim of the authorities working with the Republican Party was to deliver votes to the incumbent through persuasion, bribery and subtle forms of intimidation. Nine out of ten governors in the provinces went on leave to campaign for the current president in a public sign that the full force of their influence on the state apparatus and state controlled institutions, like the education system, would be brought to play to garner votes. Indeed the governors, as well as city mayors and village heads were well aware that they would be judged by the central administration on their ability to deliver votes to the incumbent. This competition of the governors and other senior officials between themselves, aware that their career prospects depended on the results they are able to generate, was the other electoral contest which took place alongside the presidential election.

Bribery - a well organized if discreet procedure

There were reports from local election monitors of regular planning meetings held by officials at the local level. By all accounts these would be headed by the provincial governor and attended by local parliamentary deputies from the RPA as well as the senior police representatives. The meetings assigned tasks and assessed progress in building support for the president. The mechanism was simple. Individuals with good local knowledge would be tasked with identifying voters who would then be encouraged with bribes to support the incumbent candidate. Meanwhile, heads of public entities such as teachers would be asked to provide resources such as halls for meetings as well as tell their employees to vote for the official candidate (a great majority of school directors are members of the RPA). People targeted as potential recipients of bribes, which ranged in value between 10 and 20 euro per vote, were more often than not from among the not so well off. Contact would be direct, bringing new meaning to the phrase ‘door to door’ canvassing, which in developed democracies describes candidates meeting with voters on their doorsteps in an attempt to win support. A representative of the RPA told visiting experts that their campaign consisted of making statements, having their candidate hold election meetings with voters, and going ‘door to door’ in what appears to have been a cynical parody of the western model.

But funding was sometimes scarce

In Vanadzor, a major Armenian town in the northern province of Lori, it was reported that bribes were offered to people living on pensions but employees of state institutions were told to vote for the president without a promise of financial gratification. This would indicate that the official campaign in this province was short of funds. In Gyumri, Armenia’s second largest city, funds for the bribes had to be raised locally in contrast to the parliamentary campaign in the summer of 2012 when funds for this purpose had been provided from outside the province.

Why no evidence?

The question remains why, with almost ubiquitous accounts of bribery of voters, is there no available hard evidence of this practice. Indeed, in this election the state prosecutor’s office appealed (in response to a suggestion from ODiHR after last year’s parliamentary campaign) for people who had been offered bribes to come forward. There was little response. The reason  is that people are afraid of reporting such incidents as they are aware that these will not be investigated by the police while the ‘whistleblowers’  could suffer at the hands of officialdom  if they complain. Also, potential recipients of bribes are targeted precisely because they are vulnerable to official pressure and thus prefer to remain silent. In addition, given high poverty levels and a fall in confidence in politicians, the recipient of such a bribe recognizes that this is a concrete sign that politics does deliver rewards, however modest. Voting in Soviet societies was nothing other than a gesture of loyalty to the government. Now in Armenia, the introduction of the offer of financial gratification in what is becoming a ‘voters support scheme’ is an innovation brought by the introduction of some market mechanisms into the country.    

Yet results were a surprise

The announcement of preliminary election results by the Central Electoral Commission showed a turnout of 60.04% with Serz Sargsyan declared the winner with a 58.64% share of the vote and Raffi Hovannisian in second place with 36.75%. The result was questioned by Raffi Hovannisian. In rallies immediately following the election he referred to the incumbent as the ‘acting president’ who had ‘lost the election’ because ‘the people had lost their fear’. Whatever the truth of the allegations that the ballot was fixed, the ‘official’ result of the main challenger surprised many and pointed to a surge of support in what was seen as a protest vote against the incumbent. This suggests that popular support for the president is lower than was expected and the willingness of the population to express their opposition is greater. It weakens Serz Sargsyan’s position as he faces new challenges in the post election period, especially in relations with the European Union.

Free Trade Area Agreement?

Armenia is currently negotiating a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area Agreement (DCFTA) with the EU, and with four negotiating sessions still planned it is hoped that the talks will be completed by the Vilnius Eastern Partnership summit at the end of November 2013. The completion of these talks this year would be an undoubted achievement for the EU and would show that the Eastern Partnership programme is working.

The European Council meeting last month also mentioned Georgia and Moldova as countries with whom such negotiations could also be completed by November.  Serzh Sargsyan did not mention relations with the EU in his campaign speeches, but before the elections he had said several times both in public and in private contacts with top EU officials that he will start on the reforms and push ahead with the DCFTA talks after the elections.

 However, for a DCFTA to be signed, as the case of Ukraine shows, the human rights situation in a given country has to be in line with EU democratic standards. Hence it is worth noting the low key reaction by Catherine Ashton, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Stefan Fule, the Commissioner for Enlargement, to the Armenian election results.

The EU officials welcomed progress in holding the election in line with international standards but criticized cases of partiality by civil servants, misuse of administrative resources, unclear interpretation of financial provisions and cases of pressure on voters. This statement leaves the door open to progress on the DCFTA but does not give carte blanche to the government and puts a question mark over the government’s democratic credentials.

More serious is the fact that the election, with its surge of support for an opposition candidate, shows the underlying weakness of the president’s political position. This is not a good basis from which to start implementing the DCFTA which requires major changes in the way the economy is regulated and will provoke resistance from powerful interest groups in Armenian society. 

 Observers observed and criticized

 The election was observed by many local as well as international observers. Pride of place goes to the Office of Democratic Institutions of Human Rights (ODiHR) of the OSCE, which has significant experience in election monitoring and whose judgments on the conduct of elections are widely respected.

ODiHR noted that fundamental freedoms of expression and assembly were respected during the campaign and that media coverage was balanced. However, it also mentioned cases of pressure on voters, the lack of impartiality on the part of the public administration, and the participation of civil servants in the campaign. The European Parliament (EP) observers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) concurred in these findings. The parliamentary assembly of the OSCE, which also observed the election, found that Armenia had ‘made a step forward’ in conducting this election compared to previous contests but was also critical.

But these critical remarks were not enough to deflect local criticism that international observers are much too well disposed to the host governments. What makes the situation worse is that the reports were used in Armenia by the official media, which quoted them selectively to legitimize the result of the elections.

 Also there is a growing feeling in the Eastern Partnership countries that observers from the parliamentary assemblies are biased because they are political allies of the parties which are taking part in the elections. Thus, the European People’s Party (EPP) is allied to Serzh Sargsyan’s RPA. Indeed, soon after the preliminary results were published Wilfried Martens, the head of the EPP, wrote to the president warmly congratulating him on his victory. Mr Martens, who is a former Belgian prime minister, also congratulated Raffi Hovanisian whose Heritage Party is linked to the EPP as well as the RPA.

The lack of trust in international observers and western politicians came to the fore when a small demonstration disrupted the post election press conference of ODiHR and its partners. Lena Nazaryan, a young civil activist, read out a statement beginning with the words: “Dear political tourists, we have had enough of your efforts to legitimize these fraudulent elections”. Her words were greeted enthusiastically by many of the local people in the room. This could well be a sign of the times.

Krzysztof Bobiński

The author was in Armenia from February 16 to February 21 2013 to report on the election on behalf of the election sub group of Working Group 1 of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum.

Yerevan, February 21, 2013

Photo from Bobiński's Facebook page