Armenia’s new electoral law: a historical consensus, or a sophisticated deception?

Political forces in Armenia are brazing themselves for a tough campaign ahead of parliamentary elections in April 2017. Constitutional changes enacted in 2015, and a new electortal law, adopted earlier this year, provide a new framework, which has on the whole been welcomed by local political forces and the international community. However, as Armenian political analyst Sos Avetisyan writes from Yerevan, in this commentary for commonspace.eu, the government still has subtle ways in which it can influence the outcome.

With Armenia's political system gravitating towards a parliamentary model, the electoral code that governs the conduct of elections is assuming decisive importance. At the end of the day, it is this law that will shape the make-up of Armenia's new parliament.  On June 16, 2016, the opposition parties represented in the parliament - Armenian National Congress (HAK), Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP), Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) and The Country of Law (OEK) reached a perhaps a historical consensus with the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) over the new electoral code.

The original format of the discussions that became known as 4+4+4 included 4 civil society representing organizations, alongside the political forces. While the civil society representatives actively participated at the negotiation phase, the agreement was co-signed only by the political parties. The new electoral code came into being due to concessions made by the Republican Party. For example, at elections there will be an identity check of the voters through biometrics registry, which is supposed to prevent practices such as  "ballot stuffing" and "carousel voting" -  common tools for rigging elections. Furthermore, cameras will be installed at polling stations that will live-stream the whole election process, ensuring transparency.

However, the biggest concession from the authorities was agreeing to publish the list of people who actually cast their vote at elections. Previously, the ruling party was unwilling to share such information, arguing that it will jeopardize the secrecy of the ballot. That stand allowed the authorities to boost their vote by stuffing uncast ballots for their own candidates. Repeatedly over the years, the Armenian opposition accused the authorities of using these ghost voters to swing the outcome of elections to their favor.

So, what are the real reasons for such softening of the governmental line?  There are two explanations. First, there is a tremendous Western pressure on Armenian authorities for comprehensive reforms. Given that Armenia is moving to a parliamentary system under the guidance of President Serzh Sargsyan, Western support and endorsement is paramount. Secondly, the safeguards against a possible opposition victory are carefully installed in the fabric of the law.

 

Western support and transition to parliamentary model

Serzh Sargayan's decision to switch from semi-presidential (it was almost always fully presidential) system to a parliamentary one has political costs. With the formal opposition remaining weak and unorganized within the country, the only real threat can be a negative Western reaction to such affair. During the campaign for the referendum on constitutional changes Serzh Sargsyan made public statements that he will not become prime minister after such changes come into effect

However, in his most recent interview, with Al Jazeera, Sargsyan argued that the question who will become the prime minister remains open, and one should wait and see how RPA will perform during the parliamentary elections. It increasingly becomes apparent that Sargsyan wants to continue his rule by changing the hat of the president with the hat of prime minster. Given this background, Western endorsement, or at least soothing of criticism is needed. Holding parliamentary elections that will meet  Western standards of transparency, and appeal to the opposition parties, hence becomes an important objective.  The EU is expected be a major donor for implementing the electoral improvement mechanism, providing around 16 million Euros.

The "devil is in the detail"

Serzh Sargsyan's government is neither naïve nor altruistic to trust such important transition to the faith of sophisticated electoral mechanisms. The electoral law is constructed to ensure the endurance of the regime. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), as well as the OSCE, noted that time limit on forming coalitions- the parties who passed the threshold should form coalition within six days after the election results are known, as well on the numbers of the parties (no more than three parties or political groups can form a coalition) is a clear downside of the new law.

The most important card that government has in its sleeve is the so call rating/compensating system.  In order to ensure so called "stable majority", in the electoral code it is enshrined that in case one of the parties attains four-ninth of the overall vote or above, it will receive additional MP mandates to the point that it ensures 54 percent representation in the parliament.

Lastly, the government has recently passed a law on "false accusation" supplementing the electoral code, which effectively is aimed at threatening journalists and/or observers who report voting irregularities.

The limitations on coalition-building, is linked to the fact that there should be a stable majority in the parliament. In this way, the RPA ensures that it will get necessary seats in the parliament while denying any possibility for the consolidation of the opposition. Furthermore, the current coalition arrangement with the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, if continued in the next parliament, depletes any significant possibility for real challenge to an RPA government in Armenia. Given that the installment of a new sophisticated identification mechanisms will lessen the chances for ballot-stuffing, the ruling regime has opted to ensure its continuation through electoral mechanism.

Put simply, the RPA, with the backing of extensive administrative resources, will likely  secure a "clean vote" of around thirty-five, without needing to resort to electoral malpractices. Then by forming an alliance with the ARF it will be able to form the "stable majority".  Given the constraints for coalition-building that other parties now have under the revised constitutions, that scenario is now increasingly likely.

The "false accusation" law puts the burden of proof on the activists who report any falsification of the vote, and in case the court deems that there was not a violation of the law, then those reporting it will be held responsible. The law has been described by human rights activist as government leverage to limit the activities of election observers. While legal experts are assured that there is no lawful way to hold those reporting election violations responsible for "false accusation", it nevertheless, remains a potent way for government to threaten journalists and/or observers.

To conclude, the new electoral code was endorsed by OSCE and PACE as well as agreed with the political parties in Armenia, it nevertheless remains a controversial one. In other words, it skews the level playing field to favor the incumbent regime in a disproportional manner.

source: Sos Avetisyan is an Armenian political commentator and observer. He recently graduated with an M.Phil in Russian studies from the University of Oxford. He contributed this op-ed for commonspace.eu

photo: Armenians voting in a recent election (archive picture courtesy of RFE/RL)

 

 

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)