• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
24.03.2008

ON THE ELECTIONS AND POST-ELECTION PROCESSES IN ARMENIA

   

Gagik Harutyunyan

Gagik_Harutyunyan (medium) The well known events following the presidential elections in Armenia are being discussed on quite different levels. In this context the following observations are probably quite relevant.

“Partial revolution”

According to us, electoral and post-electoral processes in the RA first of all need distinct definitions which are still lacking both in the Armenian information field (considered to be one of the numerous omissions in this sphere) and in official appearances (the reason of which can be understood). Basing on Serbian, Georgian, Ukrainian and Kirgiz experience, some analysts represent the election campaign of Levon Ter-Petrosyan and the following events as the scenario of a classic “color revolution” (CL), and one can’t but agree with these assertions. It is also known that today’s CL was not without outside intervention: its main authors are Anglo-American services, which are sometimes assisted by the corresponding structures of some European countries (in Serbia-the German ones, in Ukraine – the Polish ones). In case of the RA there are indirect evidences that it was mainly planned by the Grate Britain; there are also opinions about participation of other non-European countries.

In this connection let’s mention that today in the west are conducted and published researches aiming at revealing prerequisites and analyzing conditions necessary to carry out a revolution in this or that country. One can speak about formation of a certain new scientific direction which may conditionally be called “revolution generating.” It is interesting that in the works published in this direction is almost not considered the role of external factors, which, from the scientific-methodological standpoint, makes such researches quite vulnerable. However, one should suppose that the methodology of external influence is being projected in particular by the specialists of information-psychological special operations, and these elaborations are not open for press.

At that, much has come to prove that the events in the RA (in comparison with other CRs) were not directed at replacing the authorities. That’s to say “planners” of CL did not aim at carrying out revolution in the RA but conducting some “partial revolution.” Such an approach is argued by the following reasons.

It goes without saying that the real authors of CR were to be aware of the following:

  • The RA is a country with quite a strong State system (it has come to be proved by various rating figures made by western research centers and must be affirmed by “closed” analytical reports coming through different channels);
  • The RA governing body, which has enough political will and, in particular, military experience, will never yield the authority to power or psychological pressures.

Indirect geopolitical realities have also come to prove that all those occurrences did not aim at conducting revolution. The strategy pursued by Anglo-Saxons to Armenia up till now may be characterized as following:

  • Basing on the logic of their regional policy the US and its allies aimed at giving possibly quick solution to the RF-RA allied relations, and at best, give them secondary importance;
  • In particular basing on the problem of recognizing the Armenian Genocide and settling of the Karabakh conflict, the US and its allies aim at using the RA and NKR in some situations as a deterring factor against Azerbaijan and Turkey.
  • In the context of the second point let’s add that often, basing on the same methodology, the militarized moods of Azerbaijan and Turkey are used to make pressure on RA and NKA, that’s to say the US and its allies act in accordance with the rules of classical geopolitics.

It is obvious that to realize the second clause it is necessary to have a capable military-political element in the face of the RA. At the same time, it may be assumed that the CR planners in Armenia had a clear-cut idea that the capabilities of L. Ter-Petrosyan and his command were not that high and they could considerably weaken the RA, and that kind of country can not stand out as a serious factor in the context of the second thesis.

In that way we can suggest the argued version of the objective the CR authors were pursuing: to preserve today’s authorities capable to function and having the necessary anti-Turkish (anti-Azerbaijani) orientation, but at the same time weaken it and make more obedient. In particular it would not only provide an opportunity to play anti-Turkish (anti-Azerbaijani) geopolitical game at their discretion but would also partially solve the tasks mentioned in the first and third clauses (in the context of the last one the defeatist ideology of the first president is more than appropriate).

Basing on the logic of post-election developments, one comes to a conclusion that L. Ter-Petrosyan was for some time sure that that the CR authors would support him up to the victory. However, it didn’t happen and this fact was more probably quite unexpected for the first president: His articles published by the American press, where L. Ter-Petrosyan was actually reproaching the western countries in deviation of democratic principles, have indirectly come to prove it. Today, the internal pressure is exerted not at all to support L. Ter-Petrosyan (the election results are not called in question by anyone): the western political circles are only concerned by military operation of the authorities and its outcome, that’s to say an objective is set to make a pressure on the RA authorities. In parallel with it, the CR authors will make an attempt to make maximum use of the movement initiated by the first president as a permanent factor of influencing on the RA authorities.

It is the high time to build “windmills”

Prognostication of the future of any social-political movement, in view of a big number of possible changes, is very difficult even for the Anglo-American political-planners with rich traditions of strategic way of thinking. In the developments to follow the Armenian state-political elite is sure to play a defining role. In that context it is probably useful to remember the event in the Beijing Tiananmen Square.

As it is known, in 1989 the Chinese authorities drove away the permanently held mass rallies of the students in the Beijing Tiananmen Square at the cost of many victims (for about 2600 demonstrators were assassinated). The students were claiming for system changes... Let’s mention that there is an opinion in the analytical community that the impetuous raise of China, which began in 1990s and has continued up to our days, is conditioned by the very intensive reforms following the dramatic events in Beijing. In that way, the Chinese elite, drawing corresponding conclusions, managed to transform the destructive, rioting energy accumulated in dissatisfaction of the youth into the constructive one. Thus, the People’s Republic of China realized the well known thesis of the system of national security in practice, which has the following Chinese interpretation: “While a strong wind is blowing get ready not only tents but also old ropes...”


Return
Another materials of author