General

Armenia’s Democratic Triumph

Paul
Stronski, The Atlantic, Apr 24, 2018

When
authoritarian moves fail
Armenian
opposition leader Nikol Pashinyan attends a rally to commemorate the 103rd
anniversary of mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks, in central Yerevan,
Armenia April 24, 2018. Gleb Garanich / Reuters


Each time
street protests oust the leader of a former Soviet republic, Vladimir Putin
probably sees the West’s hidden hand. But when it comes to Monday’s shocking
resignation of Armenian Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan following 11 days of
peaceful protest, such an assumption would be a big mistake. What happened on
Monday in Yerevan, Armenia’s capital, was a genuine expression of the will of
the people. Sargsyan, who had served in senior government posts for over 20
years, including the last 10 as president, lost touch with the Armenian public.
Armenians had grown tired of broken promises, endemic corruption, and the
widening gap between the country’s haves and the have-nots.

The
prologue to Sargsyan’s downfall came in 2015, when he pushed through a
constitutional change allowing him to sidestep a two-term limit by transferring
the powers of the presidency to the prime minister. On April 16, he was
nominated by the ruling party for the prime minister position, but small
protests had already begun in Yerevan in anticipation of this move. They
swelled on April 17, the day he officially took the job. When police began to
rough up and detain protestors, the demonstrations in the capital grew, drawing
as many as 100,000 people, according to some estimates.  
Few
post-Soviet leaders have stepped down peacefully, so Sargsyan’s decision to do
so is laudable. The situation remained tense to the end, but he ultimately
refrained from using brute force to quell the protests, unlike his immediate
predecessor Robert Kocharian, who ordered troops to fire on protestors after
the 2008 election, killing 10 people. Instead, Sargsyan followed former
Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze’s example: He stepped down in the face
of public protests, rather than use force on unarmed non-violent civilians.
Armenia
showed the world that people power still has purchase. Yet it will face
challenges like a struggling economy, endemic corruption, and strained
relations with all its neighbors, meaning that preserving this shining moment
for democracy will entail tremendous effort both from people inside the country
and the international community.
Something
that will help Armenia as it faces its new future is its surprisingly robust
civil society. The country is unique in the former Soviet space in that it is
neither fully authoritarian nor fully democratic, but a hybrid of sorts. Unlike
in some of its neighbors, Armenia’s social-media space remains free. While the
ruling party and entrenched economic elite have a strong hold on power, NGOs
are free to criticize them from within the country, and a rising generation of
Armenian youth now demands more from its political class.
The
Armenian government, it seems, failed to keep up with its demands. Under
pressure from Russia in 2013, it backed away from signing an Association
Agreement with the European Union, which would have facilitated a closer trade
and political relationship with the bloc. It had no choice but to join Putin’s
alternative to the EU, the Eurasian Economic Union, bringing many of Russia’s
post-2014 economic problems along with it. Recognizing that many Armenians felt
drawn to Europe, as well as his country’s increasing trade ties with the EU, in
2017 Sargsyan negotiated a substitute deal with Brussels to replace the
Association Agreement he abandoned four years earlier. The balancing act
between east and west was difficult.
Rising
nationalism has also been a problem for a government that tied the country’s
economic fortunes and security to Russia—a relationship that has brought few
tangible benefits to average Armenians. For nearly 30 years, Armenia has also
been in a state of war with neighboring Azerbaijan over an Armenian-dominated
territory called Nagorno-Karabakh. During a brief confrontation in 2016 with
Azerbaijan on Sargsyan’s watch, Armenia lost a small slice of occupied
Azerbaijani territory it had held for nearly a quarter century. The loss was
partly blamed on corruption in the military, and partly on Russian arm sales to
Azerbaijan. Whoever takes over for Sargsyan will have to prove his bona fides
on this issue, making peace more elusive.
The
unrest in Armenia also also seemed to tap into the rising tide of populism
around the globe. Broad segments of Armenian society have grown tired of
establishment politicians—both ruling and opposition—and have begun looking
elsewhere. The protests that led to Sargsyan’s departure were led by Nikol
Pashinian, a 43-year-old former journalist and founder of the Civil Contract,
an opposition party. Bucking the advice of other opposition parties, he called
for small demonstrations against Sargsyan’s prime ministerial appointment,
which morphed into a mass street movement. Now the leader of the opposition,
Pashinian is in negotiations with Armenia’s acting prime minister over possibly
holding new parliamentary elections.
Proponents
of democracy around the world should rejoice at the changes in Armenia. Yet,
its economic and security problems will hinder any quick solutions. The economy
is struggling and unemployment remains perennially high. Russia remains a
difficult partner, eager to intervene in its neighbors’ affairs to bolster its
influence and block the West. Putin sees the region in zero-sum terms, even if
the West does not.
The
situation, to put it mildly, remains quite fluid. Once the euphoria of the
moment subsides, a lot needs to go right for Armenia to continue down this
encouraging path.