ARMENIA’S WESTERN EVOLUTION
By Alexandros Petersen

Moscow Times
Tuesday, February 12, 2008.

The atmosphere in this frigid city is not as dynamic as in Baku or
as vibrant as in Tbilisi, but talk around Republic Square is filled
with unguarded enthusiasm theses days. On Feb. 19, Armenians go
to the polls to elect a new president to succeed Robert Kocharyan,
the Nagorno-Karabakh war hero and former de facto president of the
self-proclaimed republic. The main contenders for the presidency are
Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan and former Armenian President Levon
Ter-Petrosyan. Young, pro-Western Artur Baghdasaryan, the former
speaker of the national assembly, is also mounting a long-shot bid
for the highest office.

While election issues in Armenia focus on corruption, job creation and
development beyond the capital, outside observers tend to speculate
most on how the election will affect Armenia’s stance in negotiations
on resolving the 15-year standoff with Azerbaijan over the disputed
Nagorno-Karabakh. A high-level European delegation, lead by Slovenian
Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel, whose country currently holds the
European Union’s rotating presidency, visited both capitals last week
in an attempt to gauge attitudes toward conflict resolution. Azeri
President Ilham Aliyev took the opportunity to indicate that his
country was willing to use its expanding military to "wage war"
to secure the return of the territory.

Ter-Petrosyan’s plausible bid is interesting given that he had
been forced out of office in 1998 by his own ministers, led by
Kocharyan, who accused Ter-Petrosyan of being overly generous in
Karabakh negotiations. Ten years later, the participants of the Minsk
Group, which facilitates talks on the conflict, have adopted most of
Ter-Petrosyan’s ideas, and all that remains to be resolved — at least
on paper — is an agreement on a referendum in the territory. Given
both his history and election rhetoric, Ter-Petrosyan can be expected
to work harder than Sargsyan to head off renewed open conflict with
Baku and achieve eventual resolution. Not surprisingly, Sargsyan has
questioned his patriotism.

But, despite its declared foreign policy strategy of "complementarity,"
the Kocharyan-Sargsyan government, headed by veterans of the
Karabakh war, depends on Russian aid and diplomatic support to
maintain the cease-fire line. Under their watch, much of Armenia’s key
infrastructure and enterprises have been bought by Kremlin-controlled
firms. The country hosts more than 5,000 Russian troops, with
additional forces and equipment transferred to Armenia when bases
in Georgia were closed last year. Russian officials have spoken of
allowing Sargsyan the presidency as a gift in exchange for further
control of Armenian infrastructure.

Parallel to the electioneering and talk of war, however, Armenia
is experiencing a slow but steady move toward better governance,
distancing itself from the Russian model. The great debate of
this election cycle, spurred on by public discontent and Western
nongovernmental organizations, was about equal access to the media
by presidential candidates. The contentious election is happening
only because Kocharyan chose to honor the constitution and step down
after two terms, which was not a foregone conclusion. And several
polls have shown the increased popularity of Western institutions
such as the EU and NATO as well as less tolerance for corruption and
"politics as usual."

That said, Sargsyan has blatantly used government institutions and
capabilities for campaigning purposes. More than a thousand Sargsyan
campaign offices have been opened across the country, mainly by local
officials, and government buildings display his election posters — a
violation of Armenian election law. When they applied to display their
own posters in some municipalities, Ter-Petrosyan and Baghdasaryan
were told that all advertising space had already been purchased by
the ruling party.

But as political analyst Richard Giragosyan says, Armenia’s road to
Western-style representative government — unlike Georgia’s — is
"an evolution, not a revolution." At least through U.S. and European
eyes, an election victory for Ter-Petrosyan would seem a positive
evolutionary step.

While his presidency would certainly bring Armenia a
"back-to-the-future" moment and while Baghdasaryan would likely be
more of a reformer, success by a candidate not ordained by the ruling
party would lend legitimacy to Armenia’s democratic development. And
the progress he might bring to Karabakh talks is seen in the United
States and Europe as key to the country’s potential Western course
— even as it quietly courts NATO and works within the European
Neighborhood Policy.

While political discontent and interest in the West is rising among
ordinary Armenians, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and a comfortably
established leadership make it unlikely that Yerevan’s Republic Square
will be the next sight of a color revolution. But next week’s truly
contested election between Sargsyan and Ter-Petrosyan holds potential
for continued change — perhaps in a Western direction. Geopolitical
circumstances mean that Armenians will have to move in that direction
on their own. But self-motivation and evolution may very well be the
ingredients for sustainable good governance and Western integration.

Alexandros Petersen is adjunct fellow with the Russia and Eurasia
program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in
Washington.