08.2005 - Source: Freedom House

Major events in political history from 1918 ("Freedom in the World 2005") [#41286],  [ID 2757]

"Following a brief period of independence from 1918 to 1920, a part of the predominantly Christian Transcaucasus republic of Armenia became a Soviet republic in 1922, while the western portion was ceded to Turkey. Armenia declared its independence from the Soviet Union in September 1991.

The banning of nine political parties prior to the 1995 parliamentary elections ensured the dominance of President Levon Ter Petrosian's ruling Armenian National Movement (ANM) coalition. In February 1998, Petrosian stepped down following the resignation of key officials in protest of his gradualist approach to solving the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, the disputed enclave in Azerbaijan. Prime Minister Robert Kocharian, the former president of Nagorno-Karabakh, was elected president in March of that year with the support of the previously banned Armenian Revolutionary Federation - Dashnaktsutiun.

Parliamentary elections in May 1999 resulted in an overwhelming victory for the Unity bloc, a new alliance of Defense Minister Vazgen Sarkisian's Republican Party and former Soviet Armenian leader Karen Demirchian's People's Party, which campaigned on a political platform of greater state involvement in the economy and increased social spending. In June, Sarkisian was named prime minister and Demirchian became Speaker of Parliament.

The country was plunged into a political crisis on October 27, 1999, when five gunmen stormed the parliament building and assassinated Sarkisian, Demirchian, and several other senior government officials. The leader of the gunmen, Nairi Hunanian, maintained that he and the other assailants had acted alone in an attempt to incite a popular revolt against the government. Meanwhile, allegations that Kocharian or members of his inner circle had orchestrated the shootings prompted opposition calls for the president to resign. However, because of an apparent lack of evidence, prosecutors did not press charges against Kocharian, who gradually consolidated his power during the following year. In May 2000, Kocharian named Republican Party leader Andranik Markarian as prime minister, replacing Vazgen Sarkisian's younger brother, Aram, who had served in the position for only five months following the parliament shootings.

In 2003, Kocharian was reelected in a presidential vote that was widely regarded as flawed. He defeated Stepan Demirchian, son of the late Karen Demirchian, in a second round run-off with 67 percent of the vote. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) described the elections as falling "short of international standards for democratic elections," and asserted that "voting, counting, and tabulation showed serious irregularities, including widespread ballot-box stuffing." The second round of voting, which was held on March 5, saw the authorities place more than 200 opposition supporters under administrative detention for over 15 days; the detainees were sentenced on charges of hooliganism and participation in unsanctioned demonstrations. The Constitutional Court rejected appeals by opposition leaders to invalidate the election results, although it did propose holding a "referendum of confidence" in Kocharian within the next year to allay widespread doubts about the validity of the election returns. Kocharian indicated that he would not comply with the proposal. In response to the problems associated with the election, a standoff emerged between Kocharian and the political opposition, formed by two major groups - the Artarutiun (Justice bloc) and the National Unity Party - with opposition parties choosing not to attend sessions of the National Assembly."

Document(s): Open document

03.2003 - Source: Defence Academy of the United Kingdom - Advanced Research and Assessment Group

Analysis of the political developments since the independence: political culture and democracy building ("Political Culture & Democracy Building:The Case of Armenia (Aghavni Karakhanian/Director of the Institute for Civil Society and Regional Development (ICSRD), Yerevan, Armenia)") [#13965],  [ID 2758]

"Armenia's political development for the last decade is characterised by all the
features and conditions of transitional democracies and democratic consolidation
processes. Still the theories have lagged behind data and political reform has
lagged behind economic reform in Armenia. Even so, the development of Armenian
political culture is closely connected with the development of its economy, bringing
with it some clarification of political interests. It is a long process, and it does not
run smoothly, for it has to digest its own negative experiences.
Actually, political activity in Armenia can be defined as “subject” political culture.
That means that the population is orientated to a political institution without
feelings of personal responsibility; feelings in evaluation of political phenomena
dominate, mythological thinking (political myths reflect the population’s wishes and
help to organise the activities of society) prevails, the distinct ideologisation and
politicisation of social life and incapacity to solve problems collectively is evident.
Political life is defined less by political programmes than by possibilities to use
forms of Western political experience (like running electoral campaigns). Therefore,
actual behaviour differs significantly from programmatic truths. The result of such
political activity is that during that stage, people are removed from decisionmaking,
which causes mistrust and delegitimisation of power. This political apathy
is caused partly by the absence of real opposition as a political institution in
Armenia. The activities of social and political organisations in the republic indicate
that after 12 years of transformation from a parliamentary form of governing to a
presidential one,9 only the formal existence of many democratic institutions, ie
parties and democratic movements (including constructive opposition) may be
certified.
Anyway, one can state that Armenia has successfully passed through regime
consolidation, which is a necessary condition for democracy because if a regime
cannot provide basic guarantees of personal security for its citizens and establish a
bureaucracy which operates according to consistent rules there can be no question
of democratic elections. This has proved to be a success in maintaining a clear
policy of democratisation.
Trying to predict Armenia's future development of political culture, one can mark
out two possible scenarios. The pessimistic view is that the creation of the
necessary experience will still take a long time. The optimistic scenario is that the
democratic goal will be achieved in a few years and will be connected to the
forthcoming presidential and parliamentary elections in 2003: to be exact, in the
post-election period. But this presupposes a gathering of political actors with
common interests and the resolution of political programmes that reflect the real
interests of these actors, as well as presenting these programmes as detailed and
clear alternatives during the election campaign.
Still, in the years to come the republic will be able to reach that critical-rational
stage of development where politics will follow real interests, firm cooperative
agreements between grass-roots movements and political institutions, ideological
slogans and definitions will be tied more closely to political life, gaining content that
is anchored in political practice. Meanwhile the stage of interest formation is only
starting."

Document(s): Open document

10.2002 - Source: Schweizerische Flüchtlingshilfe

Analysis of overall political and social situation; situation of minorities (e.g. Yezidi Kurds, Jehovah's Witnesses); no efficent protection of women against domestic violence ("Analysen und Hintergründe ") [#10328],  [ID 2759]

Document(s): Open document

03.1994 - Source: US Library of Congress

Library of Congress: Country studies Armenia: Historical background ("Library of Congress: Country studies Armenia: Historical background") [ID 2760]

"ARMENIAN CIVILIZATION HAD its beginnings in the sixth century B.C. In the centuries following, the Armenians withstood invasions and nomadic migrations, creating a unique culture that blended Iranian social and political structures with Hellenic-- and later Christian--literary traditions. For two millennia, independent Armenian states existed sporadically in the region between the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean Sea and the Caucasus Mountains, until the last medieval state was destroyed in the fourteenth century. A landlocked country in modern times, Armenia was the smallest Soviet republic from 1920 until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 (see fig. 4). The future of an independent Armenia is clouded by limited natural resources and the prospect that the military struggle to unite the Armenians of Azerbaijan's Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region with the Republic of Armenia will be a long one.

The Armenians are an ancient people who speak an Indo-European language and have traditionally inhabited the border regions common to modern Armenia, Iran, and Turkey. They call themselves hai (from the name of Hayk, a legendary hero) and their country Haiastan. Their neighbors to the north, the Georgians, call them somekhi, but most of the rest of the world follows the usage of the ancient Greeks and refers to them as Armenians, a term derived according to legend from the Armen tribe. Thus the Russian word is armianin, and the Turkish is ermeni."

Document(s): Library of Congress: Country studies Armenia: Historical background