The OSCE/ODIHR monitoring mission issued another post-election interim report the other day. Talking about the ratio between the turnout at some polling places during the presidential election and the number of votes for Serzh Sargsyan, the President of the Republic of Armenia, the report reads: “An OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission analysis of official results published on February 25 by the Central Election Commission (CEC) shows a correlation between very high turnout and the number of votes for the incumbent. This raises concerns regarding the confidence over the integrity of the electoral process.” www.aravot.am inquired during a conversation with Davit Harutyunyan, Serzh Sargsyan’s deputy campaign manager and the head of the National Assembly state and legal issues commission, whether the criticism of the OSCE/ODIHR was grounded. He replied: “I realize that some people may be concerned, but it doesn’t mean that there are reasons for concern. For example, the same report states that at the polling places, where the turnout was low, Raffi Hovhannisyan won more votes than Serzh Sargsyan, as a rule. It has its explanation. The thing is that voters with oppositional sentiment are always more active. It is not an Armenian regularity; it is common everywhere. They always actively participate in elections, as opposed to the voters with non-oppositional sentiment. Sometimes being sure to win, the latter often don’t even turn out to vote. At the polling places, where Serzh Sargsyan’s campaign headquarters managed to work actively and not to allow the pro-government electorate to be passive, naturally, both the turnout and the votes won by Serzh Sargsyan had to be higher. Certainly, there are other objective reasons too. As for the concerns, the reason for them is that some condemnable phenomena might also cause such a picture. However, it doesn’t mean that the opposite conclusion is right. The comparison between the results at polling places, where the commission chairmen were representatives of the opposition parliamentary groups, and the overall results shows that such concerns are inadequate.” In response to our question what assessment he would give to the report, Mr. Harutyunyan said: “Such reports are always the focus of our attention. I think that if the atmosphere of trust in elections had been proper in Armenia, there wouldn’t have been such concern. Therefore, we have urgent things to do with regard to trust, not numbers.” Tigran Mukuchyan, the chairman of the CEC, stated that the report just asserted a few facts without any judgments. Then he went into detail: “The report rather refers to certain facts, and makes judgments related to those facts. If there is a fact, one should make detailed judgments. For example, there are many polling places, where the number of voters was small. There are polling places, where servicemen or inmates voted. Thus, there are explanations in every case. And in this context, they just asserted the fact. In that case, one should have inquired and found out the circumstances. And the report just asserts the mechanical flaws that took place.”
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
