In Armenia, has everything changed so that everything can remain the same?

This is a commentary prepared by the political editor of commonspace.eu

A new Constitution, a new Prime Minister and plenty of new faces on  the candidates list are meant to ensure that the Republican Party of Armenia retains power after the 2 April elections. Will it succeed?

Armenia's parliamentary elections scheduled for 2 April have up to now looked like a non-event, but as election day approaches things are getting more interesting. Faced with voter apathy and widespread cynicism the Armenian government and ruling party appeared as if they were taking a page straight out of Giussepe Tomasi di Lampedusa's novel, the Leopard, set in Sicily at the time of the Italian Risorgimento. In the novel the Prince confronted with the prospect of turmoil, says that "for everything to remain the same, everything must change". Faced with multiple challenges Armenia's governing Republican Party has been busy making changes, in order to ensure that it may maintain its firm grip on power.

First came the change in the constitution in December 2015. As a result, as from next year, when the term of the current Presidential incumbent, Serzh Sargsyan, expires, Armenia will become a parliamentary republic, with the powers vested in the Prime Minister as leader of the party holding a majority in parliament.

Then came the change of the Prime Minister. Hovik Abrahamyan was unceremoniously dismissed in September 2016, and replaced by Karen Karapetyan. Karapetyan had largely made a name for himself outside Armenia, as a technocrat working for Gazprom. With an image as an efficient operator, he has provided the ruling party with a fresh face, untainted by scandal and the baggage of years in power. Although he is not actually a candidate in the elections, it is his picture that the ruling party is using most to promote itself in the elections. There is however no guarantee that Karapetyan will remain as Prime Minister once the constitutional changes trigger in. Many Armenians still believe that Serzh Sargsyan will simply change titles and take on the role of prime Minister. Karapetyan lacks a local power base that is strong enough to challenge that. He seems to have more friends in Moscow than in Yerevan, but for the moment he brings a fresh breeze in an otherwise stale political atmosphere.

Ahead of the elections, the Republican Party's list of candidates was also spruced up. Some new faces were added and brought to higher positions on the list of candidates, even if the presence of oligarchs remains largely unaffected. This again gives the feeling of a revitalised party, even if in fact power remains tightly controlled by President Sargsyan and his immediate circle.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the Republican Party will win the elections without too much difficulty. The use of administrative resources, general voter apathy, a fear of the unknown, and some in-built provisions in the electoral system, are likely to combine to see it emerge as the front runner. It is however likely that it will need the support of other parties to form a majority.

That is not likely to be a problem. Many Armenians are convinced that most of the other parties contesting the elections are satellites of the RPA, even if there are enough personality clashes to ensure that a healthy degree of competition for the votes is very real. Gagik Tsarukyan's Prosperous Armenia, and Artur Baghdasarian's Renaissance are good examples. The first has genuine widespread grass root support. The second doesn't. Nothing however would give both greater pleasure than to be asked to join in coalition with the RPA. Another party, the Dashnak, Armenian Revolutionary Federation, are also likely future coalition partners. Their popularity in Armenia has never grown beyond single percentage digits, despite the fact that they remain a force among the diaspora communities in western countries and the middle east, but they seem to have found a modus vivendi with the RPA that suits both.

There are however three political forces that cannot be easily categorised as allies of the ruling party. Traditionally Levon Ter Petrossian's Armenian National Congress has been the main opponent of the current ruling force. This party is however today a shadow of its former self. It has, for reasons no one is able to explain, decided to contest the election on the platform of peace with Azerbaijan on Nagorno-Karabakh.  Commendable as such a platform is, most Armenian observers think that the Armenian electorate had not been prepared for this kind of political agenda, and in any case the vagueness of the ANC's position poses more questions than it gives answers. They may still make it into parliament based on the loyalty of their voter base. The second group is a small party called "Way Out alliance" which has ruled out any coalition with the RPA, and is the only mainstream party that advocates closer relations with Europe rather than with Russia.

And finally there is the "Ohanian-Raffi-Oscanian" triumvirate that is spicing up the election. No one thinks they are going to win - they do not have the resources, and their message has not been able to penetrate to the deeper grassroots of society. But many Armenians are fascinated by the fact that three former key ministers, including Ohanian, who was until recently Defence Minister, have now started rounding up against their former allies. Raffi Hovhanissian, the second one in the trio, brings to the triumvirate the astonishing success that he scored in the last Presidential elections when he nearly forced President Serzh Sargsyan into a second round, despite having very few resources and conducting a somewhat bizarre election campaign. The third, Vartan Oscanian, a former Foreign Minister, is considered an astute politician, who the government has always seen as a potential threat. Together this triumvirate cannot be dismissed easily, and even if they do not pose an immediate existential challenge to the RPA, they may still be able to impact Armenian politics significantly if they are able to secure a strong showing, and a good foothold in Parliament.

Contemporary Armenians are generally hugely cynical about their politicians, and greatly disenchanted with their political system. There is a generational problem too. The older generation do not feel empowered enough to believe in elections; the younger generation by and large consider that the political process is flawed and offers no hope for real change.

But Armenian politics also has the habit to throw up surprises - often unpleasant ones - that challenge the obvious certainties. Cosmetic change so that everything can remain the same may no longer be enough. The 2 April elections therefore should not be ignored. They may not be the immediate trigger for change, but they may tell us a lot whether change is likely to happen further up the line.

This commentary was prepared by the political editor of commonspace.eu

Commonspace.eu will run a live blog covering the Armenian Parliamentary elections starting at 12.00 CET on Saturday 1 April 2017. The blog will be available in both English and Russian.

Photo:  A fresh face for the Armenian Republican Party: Prime Minister Karen Karapetyan playing the drums in an RPA election video (You can watch the video here)

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)