CENTRAL ASIA – CAUCASUS ANALYST
Wednesday / June 14, 2006

ARMENIA’S RULING COALITION UNRAVELS

Grigor Hakobyan Last month, beset by numerous defections of a number of
deputies from the Orinats Yerkir (Law-Governed Country) faction and
mounting differences between Orinats Yerkir and its coalition partners,
the speaker of Armenian Parliament, Artur Baghdasaryan, resigned from
his position. The change in Armenia’s ruling coalition underscored the
immaturity of many political forces in Armenia and created a new
political reality in the country that may also have certain implications
for the foreign policy of Armenia in the region. BACKGROUND: On May
29th, Artur Baghdasaryan officially relinquished his position as the
Chairman of National Assembly of Armenia. His resignation was caused by
growing differences between his party and the presidential
administration, as well as its partners in the coalition, the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) and the Republican Party of
Armenia. To some external political observers, the history of
disagreements between the outspoken Chair of National Assembly, often
accused by his opponents for engaging in populism, began last year. At
the time, Artur Baghdasaryan accused the ruling government of engaging
in voting irregularities on the eve of the constitutional referendum in
Armenia and forwarded a list of recorded cases of alleged voting
misconduct to the Supreme Court for review.
The tensions between him and the member coalition partners, as well as
the presidential administration, continued to increase when he further
ventured into the foreign policy field and began making statements on
various issues pertaining to Armenian-Russian, Armenian-NATO and
Armenian-Turkish relations. Specifically, he advocated the pursuit of
NATO membership for Armenia, retaliatory actions toward Russia for their
decision to raise gas prices for Armenia by charging the difference in
gas prices for the hosting of Russian military base in the country. The
last straw for Baghdasaryan’s career in the ruling administration came
after he made calls for reviewing the 2001-2003 privatization decisions,
due to various fraudulent tenders that he alleged had occurred during
the implementation of the controversial privatization program.

IMPLICATIONS: Baghdasaryan’s active advocacy with a view to scrutinizing
the country’s recent privatization program caused discontent among many
of his party’s business elite, who benefited from the above-mentioned
privatization program and saw their positions endangered from their
association with the ever more vocal Baghdasaryan, whose criticism of
the ruling administration failed to subside. The defection of nearly a
dozen of parliamentarians associated with Orinats Yerkir resulted in the
decline of the party’s faction in the Armenian National Assembly and
undermined the party’s role in the coalition government. That also
showed the main weakness of the party, which was the lack of a unique
political vision that would attract people regardless of whether the
party is a part of the ruling government or the opposition.
Artur Baghdasaryan was considered the most outspoken politician
advocating NATO membership for Armenia, as well as rapid integration
into European political structures. His pro-European views earned him
the title of `The Best European of the Year’. Very often, he was
perceived by various political observers as the most likely candidate to
earn the largest number of votes in the next presidential elections.
However, his subsequent demise and the party’s positioning as an
opposition force toward the current authorities, coupled with the
desertion of many wealthy businessmen that provided financial backing
for the party, may seriously undermine his chances to win the upcoming
presidential elections in 2008. Very few wealthy businessmen would ever
consider to back a political opposition force, thus undermining their
own access to the ruling administration which provided them with the
opportunity to prosper in the first place.
The Orinats Yerkir party’s past membership in the ruling coalition does
not attract make it appealing to the current opposition forces in
Armenia either, as many of the opposition forces view the transition of
Orinats Yerkir from party of power into a party in opposition as another
calculated political move by the presidential administration of Armenia
to further split the less than cohesive opposition. Meanwhile, other
opposition forces consider the sudden move of Orinats Yerkir party into
the opposition camp as a calculated pre-election move on behalf of
Baghdasaryan, designed to further his personal ambitions by first
distancing himself from the ruling administration and secondly creating
a momentum to recreate himself for the purpose of enlarging his
electorate and creating an opportunity to pick up additional votes from
a portion of Armenian voters who would otherwise have voted for a
mainstream opposition candidate.
Another factor to consider is the potential for the remaining parties in
power, the Republican Party of Armenia and the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation (Dashnaktsutiun), if successful in the upcoming parliamentary
elections, to eventually play a decisive role in speeding up the
realignment of political forces in Armenia by consolidating them into a
more cohesive and clear-cut political spectrum where a line between
liberal and conservative ideologists would be easier to distinguish. The
amorphous political situation in Armenia has created a situation where
most political parties lack a clear political vision. They mostly feed
off empty rhetoric, and their would-be members rally around specific
personalities and not specific policies. Parties may pride themselves by
the number of their party memberships, yet this only increases or
decreases depending on whether the party in question is in power or in
opposition and not by any tangible accomplishments for the benefit of
the people. Clearly, this situation is not sustainable.

CONCLUSIONS:The transition of the Orinats Yerkir from a party in power
to a party in opposition was long anticipated, as the disagreements
within the ruling coalition became more transparent after the passage of
the Constitutional Referendum in Armenia. The controversies over voting
irregularities during the Constitutional Referendum, differences over
the country’s foreign policies, and the common belief among the two
junior partners of the government led by the Republican Party of Armenia
` that is Orinats Yerkir and the ARF ` that they were cheated out of
votes during the parliamentary elections could not but undermine the
effective work of the coalition government. Indeed, Orinats Yerkir is
not the only disgruntled party: the continuous tension between the ARF
and the Republican Party could further split the ruling coalition by
resulting in the exodus of another party from the coalition government.
As Armenia’s parliamentary elections of 2007 are fast approaching, it is
expected that further splits, consolidations and the introduction of new
political parties in the nation’s political life will continue to occur.
As a number of well-known oligarchs and government officials rush to
create new political parties to vie for the laurels of power,
strengthening their own positions and advancing their personal agendas,
the common electorate will continue to feel ostracized and further
disfranchised from the entire political process. The situation will
change only if and when people realize that their votes do really matter
and that they do have a power to a make a difference in the life of
their country.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Grigor Hakobyan is a freelance writer based in the U.S.
East Coast.

cleid=4284&SMSESSION=NO