The assessments of the presidential election in Armenia given by the international monitoring organizations were often contradicting. The OSCE/ODIHR assessed the election: “We think that this election was a step backward in terms of competition.” The ICES’s assessment was milder. And how do the representatives of the local monitoring missions assess the work and position of their foreign colleagues? www.aravot.am talked with Armenian monitoring organizations’ representatives about this. Artak Kirakosyan, the head of the Civil Society Institute, said about this: “Their reports comprise two parts. In one part, they assert what they have seen. In that part, they mainly mention problems, about which the local observers have also talked. The second one is about political conclusions, where a problem arises every time whether they do it as politicians or as a monitoring mission. The biggest problem that arose this time was that analysts have the right to talk about whether the election was competitive or not, whereas an international observer has no right to say something like that. International observers draw political conclusions, which are based on their perceptions and interests and not merely carry out a monitoring mission. A step backward doesn’t work anymore; they didn’t say that during the parliamentary election either. There are political issues related, say, to the integration of the Republic of Armenia in the European Union. The OSCE is a political organization, the Council of Europe too, and political organizations give political descriptions. The same thing applies to the American conclusion. The Russians also have political interests. They cannot say that the elections in the Republic of Armenia were conducted badly, since they say that they were conducted well in Uzbekistan, so that they are not blamed afterwards. Therefore, we should assess the legitimacy.” Anahit Gevorgyan, the head of the Martuni Women’s Community Council NGO, in her turn, said in this regard: “I don’t blame the observers. When they enter a polling place, they really see that everything is perfect. Outwardly it is normal, no crowds within 50 meters; it is placid inside. How could they know that all members of that commission are uniform people, which is the reason why no one makes a fuss there? It is a calm election; what should they record? They would enter at the time, and a poll-watcher would fight; who would fight now, so that they could see? If political parties don’t join the game; what this election was for? An observer is not politically active. We cannot find a neutral man to fight. Besides, everyone knows everyone; last time our observers were more secure, we would tell them to go and tell the poll-watchers of the Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP), and they would fight. Yes, I agree that the election was not competitive. While Raffi Hovhannisyan rarely had poll-watchers in a district, Serzh Sargsyan had poll-watchers four times registered in each place.”
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
