Manvel Sargsyan
Director, the Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS)
Partner expert, the Armenian Institute of International and Security Affairs (AIISA)
Sharpening international policy of “war on terror” is becoming a conundrum for more and more states of the world. Slump in oil prices, flows of migrants, tendencies in internal fragmentation, rise of military confrontation have aligned anxieties of both developed countries and those back away from leading edge of civilization processes. In likewise cases it’s becoming quite senseless the ubiquitous diktat on state-building by democratic principles and with requirements of human rights protection. None of authoritarian regimes can understand what is required from them. While in convulsions they are tuned to the West, initiate coalitions and alliances, and problems only accumulate though.
It so happened, that international policy of war on terror has been projected over Armenia in the form of intensified demands on democratization and fight against corruption by the West. Changes in Russian policies on issues of strategic importance for Armenia—Genocide and settlement of Karabakh conflict—became another projection of it. These changes were initiated by Russian-Turkish confrontation reflected in Russia’s new Middle Eastern policy. Besides, signing of a new association agreement with the European Union is offered to and taking measures to decrease tension in Nagorno-Karabakh contact line is required from Armenia.
Exactly within these international tendencies it’s noteworthy to scrutinize Armenia’s concerns and political-legal conditions and assess its capabilities to meet new challenges of the era of “international policy of war on terror.” Particularly, it’s important to reveal whether Armenia’s political elite is able to understand essence of current requirements and proposals to it. Analysis for configuration of world leading powers’ interests goes beyond the scope of our research. However, one aspect is worth touching upon to extract the logic of their interrelations in Armenia.
Read also
There is enough evidence to argue, that in contemporary world the imperative of legal regulation for political actors and their interrelations is becoming more substantial factor in the universal system of interests of Western leading powers. Nature of a strategic threat has changed in contemporary world. If until the 21st century threat to national security and territorial losses were perceived as strategic ones, currently such are threats to state and financial stability of the world.
Leading powers direct their potential towards neutralization of threats to their political and financial stability. And increasing impact of these new interests more and more pushes to the loss of significance of traditional international principles and institutes of previous decades. Military force loses its authority to solve avalanche-like problems. Political, financial and technological processes are obtaining more carcinogenic character, destroying the base of any stability.
Sharpening of diktat against authoritarian states is becoming clear within the above described logic. In particular, nature of requirements and terms to Armenia is also becoming understandable. Hence, it’s worth comprehending, whether Armenia is ready to realize this at state level and especially, to shape genuine domestic and foreign policies.
Armenia’s present-day political condition can’t be called a unique one, but it drastically differs from other countries of post-Soviet space. Although Armenia has passed whole way like other countries, an unprecedented process of overcoming authoritarianism in its classic sense was recorded only in Armenia.
From early 2000s authority of “sacral nation-wide” ideas came to lose their mobilization potential in Armenia, opening gates of domestic policy for legal ideas. Emerged on the power struggle level, topics of constitution, legal order and rule of law have complicated position of the ruling elite that lost a powerful manipulation lever on social consciousness. As a result of more criminalization of political life and strengthening of illegality and arbitrariness in the country, “anti-criminal” turned into a key opposition paradigm. Under likewise political agenda by opposition, authorities could stake on administrative oppression and hard power. Ideological platform in the authorities’ political arsenal has quite weakened. They have staked only on opposition’s disorganization. Until now the major political function of the society— formation of power through elections—doesn’t find its mechanisms of implementation.
Privileges of the situation remained in hands of authorities that borrowed legal ideas from the opposition. Under the “protection of constitutional order” slogan the ruling elite shielded itself from protest of nihilistically tuned citizens. Political parties, supporting such actions by the authorities, formed a “power camp” organized and functioning on the basis of power-sharing accord (for the first time accord on ruling coalition was negotiated after the 2003 parliamentary elections).
Representative and executive offices were distributed among members of power camp. For the first time contractual system of power was formed in the country, that ignored constitutional election mechanism as a source for power. This is the difference of democratic transition of Armenia’s political system from other post-Soviet countries.
Opposition ceased to be a factor predetermining political developments in Armenia. Since then, economic and socio-political life of Armenia came to be regulated via “normative acts” of shadow coalition accord. Moreover, mechanism of “nomenclature opposition” was introduced in political life, by that, opening doors before political parties for a new activity.
Power camp works on itself, and accordingly, pursuing its own interests. Authorities conduct a policy of suppressing individual and social initiatives. Described anti-constitutional political system per se was legalized through amendments to the country’s Constitutions 6 December 2015. Perspectives to form a public administration system through elections have practically been nullified. Main resource to keep political dominance is sought in foreign policy issues and interrelations.
To sum up key issues, containing the country’s total potential and diminishing its role in international affairs, the following picture can be drawn:
• Armenia’s political-legal model is distorted due to legal unsettlement of its relations with Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Neither separation of rights and obligation between the two in Armenia’s legal system nor NKR full integration into Armenia’s legal framework occur;
• Almost complete merging of power and big business, monopolization of economy, lack of independent judiciary and free elections limit chances for development of economy and democratic institutions. Possibilities to attract Armenian Diaspora resources in strengthening of statehood are narrowed as well;
• Considerable amount of Armenia’s fettering treaties with its strategic ally—Russia, impossibility to impact on Russia’s policies are barriers for diversification of country’s policy and economy. Providing of security for Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh more and more encounters with hard-to-solve and insoluble situations. Armenia unwillingly becomes a part of Russian policy of “war on terror.”
It can be rather confidently stressed, that under current conditions the strategic issue of Armenian society remains reviewing political and legal model and establishing constitutional order in the country. Not a single society can exercise its vital functions unless it shapes borders and principles of organization of the community. Such a task is quite harmonious with ongoing trends of world development. Though talking to the world with Armenia’s present-day quality is complicated.
Manvel Sargsyan
“Improving Security Policy Debates in Armenia” programme (NED)
The Armenian Institute of International and Security Affairs (AIISA)