Opinion: The double-life of Armenian headteachers and kindergarten directors

The use of civil servants to rally support for the ruling RPA party ahead of elections in Armenia on Sunday has caused concern among opposition parties, but their complaint has been overturned by the Central Elections Commission. Sos Avetisyan comments on developments in this op-ed for commonspace.eu

The old ways it seems, remain the best way for fixing elections in Armenia. This despite the promises to conduct clean elections on April 2nd, and despite significant improvements in the conduct of the pre-election campaign, symbolised best by the appearance of opposition figures on the main TV channel - something unthinkable in previous elections.  

The abuse of "administrative resources" has been a recurrent concern in myriads of reports prepared by both local and international election observers in Armenia and in post-Soviet space.  However, to date no real investigation as to how these mechanisms play out has been conducted in Armenia.

Last week the Union of Informed Citizens (UIC) broke the pathetic silence of the pre-election period. The simple technic this investigative NGO deployed paid off handsomely. They simply called the school headmasters as well as kindergarten directors who were suspected to be either members of, or affiliated with, the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), and lured 114 of them into confessing that they had prepared lists of people who were to be coerced to vote for RPA. Furthermore, some of them told the investigative team that they take the lists directly to their peers in the leadership of the regional local administrations.

Whether the canvassing of people by staff of schools and kindergarten is really an effective tool remains a matter of speculation. Armen Grigoryan, an Armenia based analyst and coordinator of Transparency International election monitoring programme, thinks that although this is clearly a violation of the law this sort of canvassing of people is not always working. "At the end of the day people enter into pulling booth alone, and may choose not to vote for the ruling party".

At the same time the investigation of UIC sheds light on a small part of a much larger, well-organized, and often time self-perpetuating network of state employees working for the ruling party. They apart from their taxpayer-supported mundane vocation, turn into an election rigging machine during election time. Aside from vocally criticizing the phenomenon one should also attempt to explain it. The common saying during pre and post-election period in Armenia is that people sell their votes for "5000 drams (ten euros) to 20,000 drams (40 euros)", which is only the part of the story.

In reality, the voting for the ruling party carries one message - people want to ensure their jobs, and secure access to favors. In a country like Armenia, where poverty rate is around 30 percent, and unemployment is 20 percent, being able to retain your job is of paramount importance. The abuse of administrative resources is not only about forcing state-employees to engaging in electoral fraud, but also using the state resources to prop up party-loyal structures such as state universities, youth wings and pro-governmental NGO's. To be sure not only the school teachers, but also the mayors, heads of regions, as well as other elected and appointed bureaucrats engage in similar activity. This is not to exonerate the despicable actions of school and kindergarten directors, but rather to explain why the phenomena is so widespread.

The official reaction from RPA was an acknowledgment of such activities, explaining that the electoral law does not prohibit political agitation after working hours. The Ministry of Education and Science has commented that circulars were sent to headmasters who were involved in the scandal to report on their activity. Nevertheless, consequences, such as firing the directors involved,  are unlikely as they would send the wrong messages to RPA loyalists across Armenia.

The opposition was rightly outraged, but only two opposition parties - Yelq bloc and ORO bloc formed around Armenia's ex-defense and ex-foreign ministers - have taken the case to to Central Election Committee (CEC) demanding the cancellation of RPA's participation in the elections based on the acquired evidence. The CEC has dismissed the case as they didn't find there has been any violation of the electoral code, nevertheless, CEC too will send a circular to the directors to ask them to explain their actions. The argument of the CEC for not disqualifying the RPA is that the recordings of the interviews conducted by the NGO were done without the knowledge of the directors, and the formation of the likely-voter lists per se is not considered as political agitation. Only in the case of Gyumri's 37 school director will the case be sent by CEC to prosecutors office, since during the interview the director seriously threatened the investigative group. The opposition is now thinking of taking the case to court.

Perhaps in the long run what the opposition, as well as Armenia's international donors especially the EU and the OSCE, should do is to push for reforms guaranteeing job security for state employers. This is of course easier said than done, given that Armenia gravitates towards a parliamentary system, where the distinction between the state and the party will only blur further. However, without real reform of the legislation regulating the contracts of  civil servants and state employees, there is a danger that Armenia will eventually  slide into a one-party state.

Sos AvetisyanSos Avetisyan is an independent political analyst based in Yerevan. He contributed this op-ed for commonspace.eu

 

 

 

Photo: Lists of teachers enrolled as part of the RPA election camapaign in Armenia (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).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

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)