HOME POLITICAL PECULIARITIES OF NKR ELECTION
Davit Babayan
Azat Artsakh Daily, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh [NKR]
18-06-2007
Elections in any country, especially in countries of strategic
importance, attract the attention of external forces, and the more
important the country is, the sooner attention turns into actions. The
presidential elections are usually more important than the other
elections; therefore, the external forces focus on presidential
elections more. Considering that elections usually kindle tensions,
a candidate or his supporters may grow less realistic and overestimate
their possibilities. This candidate usually loses the election. But
it may also be useful because in this case the real purpose and
aspirations of the candidate and his supporters are revealed.
Hence, people may reduce the possibility to get tempted by attractive
and at the same time doubtful ideas these forces use as a screen. A
situation may occur when the candidates and supporting forces have
quite different purpose and intentions; in addition, either the
candidate does not acknowledge or acknowledges too late when he is
unable to do anything. This is the most undesirable situation. When
the candidate loses the election, they blame him, and finally he is
forgotten. There is no alternative to this scenario.
And when the candidate is elected, soon a crisis occurs inside the
team, which can be overcome by "disbanding" the team. Otherwise,
the head of state becomes a marionette for the people who pursue
their personal ends.
Interestingly, some forces are displaying similar tendencies. These
tendencies are revealed in the articles of the political scientists who
allegedly support Masis Mayilian, the NKR deputy foreign minister. In
this context, the main ideologist is Igor Muradian. Mr. Muradian’s
analyses reveal the strategy used before and during the campaign and
after the election. In order to give a realistic idea, a political
analysis should be free from emotions, because they often offset
the more important aspects of the issue. Let us try to discuss this
tactics. Only an unbiased and emotion-free analyses of the tactics
can lead to the understanding of the tactics by which this tactics is
determined. Igor Muradian’s articles which are often lengthy, with
a heavy use of terms and statements which often are not clear to an
ordinary person, have two aims. First, it is the foreign political
direction and the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In
this context, Igor Muradian accuses NKR and its government, namely
the head of state of reluctance to conduct a foreign policy, as a
result of which NKR is not participating in the talks. He proposes
becoming engaged in this process immediately. The issue that the
political scientist raises is sensitive for the people of Karabakh,
and at first sight he may seem to be right. However, let us view this
issue without emotions, from a political aspect. Azerbaijan has always
stressed the talks with Armenia, trying to transfer the settlement
of the problem of Karabakh from the plane of self-determination to
that of a territorial dispute. In 1998 it insisted, and due to the
non-constructive approach the talks on Karabakh could fail.
The OSCE Minsk Group, which has often met the wishes of Azerbaijan,
agreed to hold the talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan. What can
we do? We can wait until the process gets deadlocked. In addition,
NKR has always stated that the conflict cannot be settled without the
participation of official Stepanakert in the talks as a full-right
member. We can now see that the talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan
are not effective and have no prospects. The mediators acknowledge
that the conflict cannot be resolved without the participation of
NKR. In addition, they acknowledged when they again met Azerbaijan’s
demands and launched the so-called Prague process when the presidents
of Armenia and Azerbaijan meet and discuss the issue.
Besides, Azerbaijan today demands the return of all the liberated
territories surrounding the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region
and the Azerbaijani refugees. In addition, it finds that Karabakh
must be part of Azerbaijan. Hence, the experience to first eliminate
the consequences and afterwards the causes of the conflict shows it
has no prospects. It appears that if the Prague process fails, not
only a new process will be considered but also a logical approach to
that process. In other words, no efforts will be made to eliminate
the consequences of the conflict as long as the causes have not been
eliminated yet. In this context, NKR must wait and decline to join the
process, which is coming to its end. If Stepanakert becomes involved
in the talks now, it will be meaningless to negotiate the territories,
refugees and other issues. The process will eventually be deadlocked,
and Azerbaijan will blame us. Apparently, this is what Igor Muradian
suggests. Naturally, it is not our way. The Prague process must reach
a deadlock without us. Therefore, the foreign policy of NKR, which
Igor Muradian criticizes so passionately, is justified. It is also
obvious that Muradian pursues other aims. The second tactical goal is
to denigrate the democratic development in NKR. Igor Muradian is now
trying to divide the society of Karabakh. Mostly due to him some NGOs
have assumed the role of political parties and act as "opposition"
in the pre-election stage.
It is an effort to set the NGOs against the government and spoil
their relations after the presidential election to later use
this fact to continue to "denigrate" the democratic reputation of
Karabakh. Naturally, no attack on this reputation is desirable for both
our people and state. And two or three people place their personal
interests superior to the interests of people and the country. The
analysis of the main tactical purposes reveals the strategic purpose
Igor Muradian and his supporters are pursuing as the election is
drawing nearer. The main purpose is to denigrate the democratic
image of NKR rather than Masis Mayilian’s presidency. The best time
is the election. And in order to make the policy look complete, all
the elections are denigrated. Igor Muradian has been criticizing the
parliamentary election of 2005 for two years, despite the evaluation of
the international observers. Now he has got down to the presidential
election, which will also be considered as "falsified". It will not
be enough.
It will be necessary to denigrate the local elections in
October-November.
The abovementioned forces will work hard and carry out the task. It
is clear that the failure of the democratic image of NKR will
break the balance in the Karabakh-Azerbaijani conflict, where the
democratic development of NKR offsets the geographical advantages
of Azerbaijan. It is obvious that certain external forces are
interested in this strategic goal, and first of all Azerbaijan. It
is the purpose of Igor Muradian and two or three supporters who are
not quite interested in the election of Masis Mayilian.
Mayilian’s defeat will open up new opportunities for the demand for
these people. Today Igor Muradian and two or three supporters are
considered as the coordinators of the "oppositionist" movement in
NKR. It is clear that if this candidate is elected president, they
will influence him, and it is possible that they may also deprive him
of his position. This situation contains danger and uncertainty. And
if Mayilian loses, they will blame him, and they will carry on
the oppositionist movement, avoiding responsibility. Leading and
coordinating at least a small movement makes its initiators stronger,
and the strength is taken into account. Here is demand.
The abovementioned circumstances reveal the hidden but important
sides of such an important event as the election. Despite these
unclear and complicated "combinations" without which no election is
possible, there is a simple but effective mechanism – prevention of
manipulation of one’s own opinion. That is voting for one’s beliefs and
conscience. NKR has an important peculiarity. Our country is small, and
we can easily get information about every candidate and every force,
and one cannot be cheated. This peculiarity is considered as one of
the mechanisms of control of the society. If we vote for our beliefs
and consciousness, we can prevent any effort to affect our election.