Special for the Armenian Weekly
A casual look at the Armenian political scene makes the following apparent: (1) Serge Sarkisian is the alpha male in the Armenian political “jungle.” (2) He is in absolute control (as the term “absolute” is generally understood). L’affaire Tsarukian was significant, not for the handful of reasons that might be cited for its happening, but for Sarkisian’s response that brought it to a quick and peaceful end. It was an exercise in raw political power that was meant to serve as an object lesson to other oligarchs as well as to opposition leaders who, like Gagik Tsarukian, might overestimate their capabilities to challenge his administration. One might say that the subtext of the lesson to be learned was that oligarchs should be content with their wealth and tend to their business interests.
The immediate catalyst for this political tempest was Artak Khachatryan, a vocal critic of the administration who sits on the governing council of the Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP). He was active in representing the interests of small businessmen protesting changes in the Law on Turnover Tax. Although the tax had been reduced, the provision relating to accounting for the turnover of goods was objectionable because it would be difficult to comply with.
Soon thereafter, following a rally before the government building, Khachatryan was snatched off the street in Yerevan, beaten, and left bruised and battered on a street near his home. Who was responsible can only be conjectured. Should we take comfort in the fact that he did not meet the same fate as Boris Nemtsov, an outspoken critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin who was assassinated recently as he crossed Red Square with a companion? Obviously this type of action, no matter who the perpetrators might be or the reason behind it, has a chilling effect on all forms of public dissent. Khachatryan’s ordeal led to finger-pointing by members of PAP and counter-charges by members of the president’s Republican Party. This back and forth provided no answers and only served to escalate the confrontation.
Tsarukian continued to press his attack on the failed economic policies of the Sarkisian Administration and the need for regime change. It was the pot calling the kettle black. Tsarukian is a wealthy businessman who has benefitted from insider connections and has done his share with his oligarchic contemporaries to limit competition and entrepreneurial opportunity in the marketplace, protecting and advancing his business interests.
Sarkisian was less than kind by inferring that Tsarukian had limited intellectual capacity and that he was an impediment to development; he also questioned Tsarukian’s ability to lead a political party. Not knowing when he was already on the losing end of the confrontation, Tsarukian announced that PAP, the Armenian National Congress, and Raffi Hovanissian’s Heritage Party would hold an anti-administration rally. If we recall, Hovanissian had convinced himself that he had won the 2013 presidential election. Sarkisian patiently allowed Hovanissian to self-destruct in public as he brashly demanded that Sarkisian (who was reelected) resign and that snap parliamentary election be held, through on-again-off-again hunger strikes and rallies. Unfortunately, a similar fate awaited Gagik Tsarukian. Within a short time the political drama ended and harmony reigned once again. Statements were issued by the capitulating side that tended to paint the existence of a crisis situation having been averted. PAP issued a statement cancelling the Feb. 20 rally because of the “…extremely tense and emotional condition[that exists]…and to avoid potential provocations and clashes.” Tsarukian’s statement said that “No objective can justify the shedding of even one person’s blood. All issues must be resolved peacefully, legally, and through political avenues.” For good measure, Hovanissian had to add this dramatic end-piece: “The fight is on… Today we have appeared in an unprecedented political and civil situation, which demands an immediate and complete solution.” Comments such as this without any follow-through only add to voter cynicism and are better left unsaid.
Days later at a PAP convention, Tsarukian resigned as party chairman, ostensibly to oversee his business empire. It seems likely that he will vacate his seat in parliament as well. Party secretary Naira Zohrabyan was named chairwoman. PAP was now designated as an opposition party. Was resignation the price Tsarukian had to pay for confronting Sarkisian in public? If so, it was a bearable price to pay. It was better than losing part or all of his oligarchic gained fortune. Already, there have been some defections from the party. Since there are no ideological ties that bind members to the party, any decision to leave is made significantly easier.
What this political squabble reaffirmed is that Sarkisian is firmly in power. He controls all the levers of government. As brought out in previous articles, he will continue in power at least through the next election cycle in 2018 by hand-picking the Republican Party’s presidential candidate. Barring some tectonic shift in the political landscape, Armenia is expected to become a parliamentary republic possibly in 2016. Whether or not Sarkisian remains the public face of Armenia, his Republican Party will most likely retain its dominant position. Unless Sarkisian has an epiphany, the near future will not differ much from the present.
If any meaningful change is ever to come about, the political parties must put aside their differences and personalities for the common good, which is to curtail the onerous effect of one-party rule and the stranglehold that monopolists have on economic development. Unfortunately, this cannot be accomplished until the Armenian people accept their role in seeking change. It is the responsibility of the opposition political leaders to harness this critical support. Without their participation, change is impossible. Although the electorate represents numerous groups with different interests and different needs, it is up to the opposition leaders to find commonalities that can unite agricultural families, the urban employed, the unemployed, small businessmen, pensioners, university students, and those below the poverty level, among others, to literally chip away, piece by piece, at the existing power structure. It is no easy task to accomplish, but significantly more doable than regime change in one fell swoop. We should eliminate regime change from our vocabulary. It has been bandied about so often that it no longer has any credibility as an objective. Something else that should be considered is that many Armenians do believe that Sarkisian is the right leader at the right time given the volatility of the situation in the South Caucasus.
Unfortunately, at the present time there is no identifiable individual who has the ability and the desire to lead an effective movement to bring about change. Until that someone appears, and the political parties are able to overcome ideologies and personalities to work cooperatively, and the people are actively engaged in securing their own future. Armenia will continue to belong to the Republican Party, Serge Sarkisian, and the oligarchs.
Michael Mensoian
Latest posts by Michael Mensoian (see all)
- Facing the Reality that is Artsakh - August 6, 2020
- Tourism: An Economic Tide That Can Lift All “Boats” - January 29, 2020
- The Legacy of the Hairenik and the Armenian Weekly - January 7, 2020
Sarkisian would be easier to deal with if he was emasculated by the elimination of his brother’s behind-the-scene activities.
A fair and balanced article by Mr. Mensoian.
Regarding Mr. Tsarukian.
Rumor was it that in a momentary lapse into delusions of grandeur, Tsarukian flew to Moscow to gain backing for something stupid.
He was naturally rebuffed and told to get: nobody takes him seriously politically in Moscow.
Pres Sargsyan blew his stack, because he did not expect someone close to him to take that treacherous a step.
Fortunately, deploying the ancient Armenian tradition of resolving conflicts – via Խ Ծ Բ – some adults sat Mr. Tsarukian down, talked to the child, and pointed out the error of his ways.
To his credit, Mr. Tsarukian got the message loud and clear, and the ‘situation’ was resolved rather quickly and neatly.
Everybody happy.
How many times do I have to repeat we are a Great people ? Even the դոդ amongst us are pretty smart.
Regarding: {“…many Armenians do believe that Sarkisian is the right leader at the right time given the volatility of the situation in the South Caucasus.”}
It is not “many”: it is _most_; check the presidential election percentages and also Parliamentary, regional, and local elections.
For better or worse, RPA is the only rational political party in RoA today with any following, and majority of electorate of Armenia recognizes that and gives them the most votes.
Heritage leadership is delusional and disconnected from reality.
PAP was not really a political party, but a private club and playground of a wealthy oligarch.
Maybe Ms. Zohrabyan can change it into a viable, genuine political machine.
Judging by her public speeches and actions (e.g. in PACE), new PAP leader Naira Zohrabyan seems an intelligent, balanced individual.
Don’t know all the leaders of RoA-ARF, but the two public figures, Armen Rustamyan and Giro (Kiro) Manoyan, are intelligent, rational people.
When they speak, you can tell there is a brain behind the tongue, because they think before they utter a sentence.
And of course the late Vahan Hovannesian would have been a great President: intelligent, rational, a patriot, and an NKR war veteran.
But for a variety of reasons, RoA-ARF cannot get traction with the electorate of Armenia.
Armenia does need 2 or 3 solid political machines, so they can interchange.
That way it will become largely immune to Neocon meddling.
But stability and continuity is far more important right now.
Civic institutions need time to gel and grow roots.
We need in Armenia what has been accomplished in many Western countries.
A well established bureaucracy runs the country, regardless who is President or Prime Minister.
I enjoyed Avery’s comments much more than Mensoian’s article. Well done, Avery. We need more Armenians like you.
President Sargsyan is the lesser of all evils in Armenia. Those currently waiting on the political sidelines in Yerevan to take advantage of any sociopolitical unrest are those serving Western and Turkish interests. What Armenia needs is sociopolitical evolution, not a Western financed revolution. And what the south Caucasus needs is Pax Russicana.
Good article on the sad situation in Armenia. Indeed, the one-party rule (i.e. a dictatorship) is smothering Armenia, sapping the hopes of the people, and driving thousands out of the country. Given Armenia’s ongoing confrontation with Azerbaijan and Turkey, this is recipe for a disaster. As I have stated many times before, democracy is a matter of national security for Armenia. And we Diasporan Armenians should do our part, by pressuring the regime to make more democratic concessions (e.g. by withholding aid to regime-sponsored projects, as was partially done during the last Telethon), and by encouraging the pro-democracy forces in Armenia through our support and our first-hand knowledge of democracy.
Which brings me to the proposed constitutional changes mentioned in the article. I have stated before that a new constitution, modeled after a successful democracy, is necessary to make Armenia a democracy. However, the changes supported by Serzh, which will supposedly make Armenia a parliamentary republic, are a move in the wrong direction. As many have noted, it will perpetuate Serzh’s and his party’s authoritarian rule. In a corrupt environment lacking democratic safeguards, Armenia will be like Turkey, a nominally parliamentary republic which Erdogan has managed to turn into an authoritarian state.
What Armenia needs is a presidential democracy with clear separation of powers and checks and balances. The best example of such system is the United States, as proven by history. In fact, as I have stated before, the best way for Armenia to become a strong, prosperous, and stable democracy is to copy the United States constitution. That is what has made the United States the strongest, most prosperous (i.e. largest economy in history), and most stable country [1].
Even in a democracy (as in Europe), a parliamentary system has one major flaw – lack of separation of power between the legislature (parliament) and the executive (prime minister), which can lead to a tyranny of majority, even if temporary. This was the reason that the system was rejected by the founders of the United States. In an undemocratic country such as Armenia, the tyranny of majority (i.e. the Republican party) will be virtually permanent, with disastrous consequences.
While in the United States, the president and the Congress are elected separately and can belong to different parties, in a parliamentary system, the prime minster is elected by the parliament, with both branches belonging to the same ruling party. As a result, under the U.S. democracy, the separate branches are forced to debate and compromise before reaching a resolution. Throughout its history, this has enabled the United States to overcome the challenges that it faced with relatively small costs, growing ever stronger. In a parliamentary system, on the other hand, a majority ruling both the parliament and the executive is free to make costly mistakes.
The advantage of the U.S. democracy over the European-style parliamentary system was demonstrated by the latest financial crisis. America recovered from the crisis and is currently the fastest growing economy in the advanced world (which excludes emerging economies such as China). Europe, by contrast, never recovered to the pre-crisis levels. One major reason was that Europe chose the path of austerity, while the U.S. did not. Why such difference? Thanks to the solid separation of powers in the United States, while one branch (the Republican House of Representatives) pushed for austerity, the other branch (the Democratic President) refused to follow. This forced both sides to reach a compromise: relatively mild austerity (i.e. the Sequester). In Europe, however, the conservatives in many parliamentary democracies, including Germany, controlled both the legislature and the executive, since in a parliamentary system, the prime minister is elected by the parliament, not by the people. Unchallenged, they pushed for severe austerity, with disastrous effects on the European economy.
The flaws of the parliamentary system were demonstrated on other occasions as well. Before World War II, many European parliamentary democracies responded to the global economic crisis of that time by becoming more authoritarian. The United States, on the other hand, survived the Great Depression as a democracy, stronger than ever. Disturbingly, following the recent Great Recession, several European parliamentary democracies (notably Hungary), are growing more authoritarian.
While presidential republics have turned into dictatorships too, they lacked the democratic safeguards of the U.S. democracy – separation of powers with checks and balances. Given the spectacular historical success of the United States democracy, it only makes sense for Armenia to try that system. If it does, it will be in a much better position than now to overcome its challenges.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] http://armenianweekly.com/2013/02/21/freedom-square-is-calling/#comment-96713
The one-party rule is not a dictatorship. Dictatorship is the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a ruler who has unrestricted control in a government. Whereas one-party rule (otherwise called one-party system) is a political system in which only one party exists and the establishment of other political parties is forbidden.
And lots of other loads of yawn-inducing boloney…