Opposition Angry at Karabakh Poll

The Nagorny Karabakh opposition suffered a stinging electoral defeat in the June 19 parliamentary elections, winning only three seats out of 33 in the new assembly.

Karabakh opposition parties are now considering their next move after faring badly in a poll that many had expected them to do well in.

However, after the liveliest election in the mountainous territory since the end of the war in 1994, most observers agree the voting was free and many analysts put the drubbing down to a strategic outflanking of the opposition by the authorities.

There were more than 130 non-governmental observers monitoring the polls from many countries, though the international community has not recognised the legitimacy of the election and Azerbaijan has strongly condemned them since Armenian-run Nagorny Karabakh is an unrecognised state.

One of the observers, James Hooper, head of the US-based Public International Law and Policy Group expressed hope that democratic elections in Karabakh could positively influence the peace process with Azerbaijan.

“The region will only win if Azerbaijan and Karabakh are competing in democracy and not an arms race,” he told IWPR.

According to preliminary results, pro-government forces won a convincing victory, with two pro-government parties, the Democratic Party of Artsakh and Free Motherland, claiming a total of 22 seats in the 33-seat parliament. A further five seats went to independents known for their pro-government sympathies.

The opposition alliance, ARF Dashnaktsutiun–Movement 88, gained 24.4 per cent of the popular vote, giving it just three seats.

Movement 88 is a newly formed party, while Dashnaktsutiun is Armenia’s oldest nationalist party. Their opposition to the government was not over policy on the status of Karabakh – all the parties want it to be separate from Azerbaijan – but on criticism of the government’s democratic record.

These elections differed markedly from three previous polls in Nagorny Karabakh. They took place under a new electoral law, with the use of transparent ballot boxes and with an unprecedented 127 candidates registered to run.

Most non-governmental foreign observers saw few irregularities and said that the elections had been largely free and fair.

“I witnessed a completely democratic electoral process, and I think many recognised states would do well to take Nagorny Karabakh as an example,” said Mark Almond of the British Helsinki Human Rights Group. “A lot here was organised better than in Great Britain and in this regard we have something to learn.”

Only one foreign observer, Milan Stefanec from the Czech Republic, said what he saw at nine stations fell short of European standards. At one station, he said the chairman rejected a complaint by an opposition observer, calling it “unimportant”. There were also instances where problems with documentation were sorted out not by the electoral commission but by the security forces, he said.

Some Karabakhis also though the poll was unfair. “Many people went and voted not for people they chose themselves but for people who were named for them by their bosses,” said Zhan Apresian, a voter in the village of Askeran.

A spokesman for the opposition alliance said his movement would soon publish information about electoral irregularities. “The elections were unfree, unfair and untransparent,” said Gegam Bagdasarian.

The leader of another losing party, Karen Ohanjenian of Social Justice, also insisted the elections were rigged. “A system of buying votes has demonstrated how corrupt society in Karabakh is. A corrupted democracy is prevailing here,” he said.

People working on behalf of different candidates told IWPR they had seen residents voting without proper registration documents and entering polling booths in pairs.

Most of the complaints, however, have focussed on the use of so-called “administrative resource”, pressure from the authorities on electors to vote for official candidates. People spoke of threats of being dismissed from work, bribery and pressure being put on army conscripts.

“First they asphalted our road, then they fixed our neighbour’s roof,” said Galina Babayan. “One person offered money, someone else built a children’s playground. No one dared to try to bribe me, but my friends and neighbours got very concrete offers.”

However, political analyst David Babayan urged the opposition to look not at government corruption but at its own strategy, which he believes was the key to its defeat.

“It acted impulsively, from the start setting the highest priority on criticising the authorities. For the first 10 days voters took that well, but then they got tired from the endless criticisms,” he said.

A local expert who asked not to be named added that the introduction of a second pro-government party, Free Motherland, was a clever move by the authorities to avenge an opposition victory in last year’s elections for mayor of Stepanakert.

The results have given a boost to Karabakh president Arkady Gukasian, who has one year remaining on his second term.

On election day, Gukasian called the poll “the most honest elections in the entire post-Soviet space”. Asked to comment on Azerbaijan’s rejection, he said, “Today the attention of the people and observers is fixed on processes inside Karabakh, which directly affect the independent future of the Nagorny Karabakh Republic.”

Tension is still high in Karabakh. On June 20 there was alarm at the news that opposition candidate and war veteran Pavel Manukian had been badly beaten up after an incident in the defence ministry. In hospital Manukian named the names of two well-known Karabakh generals.

Gukasian said the incident would be investigated and criminal charges brought if necessary and talks were held with the opposition. “When someone is hurt it’s not important who won and lost,” said a top official. “The authorities won the election but today it’s more important that the state does not lose.”

Karine Ohanian is a journalist with the Demo Newspaper in Stepanakert.