ROBERT KOCHARYAN’S TEN YEARS OF PRESIDENCY IN ARMENIA

In spite of the circumstance that the public of Armenia or the international public would
never understand what Armenia has achieved as a result of the past presidential elections on February
19, 2008, there is one circumstance that is clear to everybody – the incumbent president Robert
Kocharyan leaves his position. Time will show how that fact will be reflected in the further development
of the situation in Armenia. For the time being, there is sense in casting a glance at the history president
Kocharyan’s ten-year ruling. As it seems, the present realities of Armenia could be better understood in
the context of such an analysis.
2008-04-14
Now, we can more surely confirm that the former Nagorno-Karabakh president Robert Kocharyan,
having appeared on the political scene of Armenia as a result of the internal political crisis in Armenia in
1996, was destined to turn into a catalyst of serious political and economic changes in the country, as his
ten years of ruling demonstrated. It would be wrong to state that those changes were completely
connected with Kocharyan’s factor. Partially, they were connected with the objective process of
liquidating the post-war syndromes in Armenia, partially – with the political qualities of Kocharyan, and
partially – with the general process of the public development in Armenia.

It is noteworthy that Robert Kocharyan, having been established in the position of president of Armenia
in 1998, under the flag of the legend on “the necessity to regulate the Karabakh problem, was not at all
interested in the problem of introducing certain state ideology into the political life. He was counting
only on the thesis of his indispensability in the conditions of the unsolved Karabakh issue. The fact that
the thesis had quite another meaning was apparent already based on the circumstance that, for ten years
of his presidency, he managed just to maintain the status quo in the diplomacy of regulation, as well as
the Karabakh front. The issue of Karabakh, in its former appearance, has reached our days. Instead, the
time of Robert Kocharyan’s presidency in Armenia evoked a lot of questions.

The main question is what was the path that Robert Kocharyan had brought out or led into? There are a
lot of opinions concerning this question and they are controversial. However, one thing is for sure –
from the very beginning, Kocharyan’s main attention has been drawn to internal political problems and
the area of economics. Meanwhile, president Kocharyan, not having the characteristics of a public
political figure and knowledge of political/legal management technologies, from the beginning was
counting on the centralized and repressive style of ruling. That approach defined a lot in the life of
Armenia.

Undoubtedly, such qualities of Kocharyan were connected with the genealogy of establishment of that
politician. Robert Kocharyan could not be included into the category of famous leaders of the Karabakh
movement in 1988-1990s that were popular among the public. He entered into politics, rather, as a
representative of the authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh. It should be noted that Kocharyan played a big
role (not always progressive) in the political processes inside Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as in the issue
of forming the Karabakh army.
The authorities in Armenia, in particular – president Ter-Petrossian and defense minister Vazgen
Sargsyan, at that time were connecting their hopes with Kocharyan and his comrades-in-arms in
Nagorno-Karabakh. That value, all else aside, was emanating from the internal political role of the latter
in the period of the conflict of Ter-Petrossian with Dashnaktsutyun party (especially if we take into
account the factor of the significant influence of Dashnaktsutyun upon Nagorno-Karabakh in the years
of war. In that period, in the context of the military victories of 1993-1994, Kocharyan managed to
obtain significant authority among the public of Armenia.

Kocharyan has hardly ever let down his patrons in Armenia but at that time already he was expressing
qualities of an independent figure. Then already he managed to have significant influence on the
authorities of Armenia in a lot of issues. In particular, he had significant influence on Sargsyan and his
military encirclement. Then the rough and extremely de-ideological style of Kocharyan’s work started
being expressed for the first time. In particular, Armenia first saw such a style in 1998 when Kocharyan,
being still in the position of a prime minister, went for an alliance with his former opponents –
Dashnaks.

Kocharyan’s appearance in Armenia in 1997, in the conditions of the disintegration of the authoritarian
system of power, immediately and drastically increased his political role. As it is inherent to any
authoritarian state, Ter-Petrossian’s positions weakened after the war as a result of the appearance of the
second center for authoritarianism – Sargsyan, the military leader. Authoritarianism does not like a split
image of the authorities. The participants of the war, quite naturally, reinforced their position on the
Armenian political scene. Presidential elections in 1996 proved that circumstance – Sargsyan obtained a
decisive role in the country. In such a situation, the role of Kocharyan, enveloped by the “heroic myth,”
naturally, moved into the focus of attention. Objectively, the path to the presidential chair was ensured
for him. Later, life itself dictated the changes in the country.

Internal politics
Under Kocharyan’s ruling, serious shifts happened in the issues of changing the political system of the
country. President Kocharyan, initially being in the role of “a queen of England,” turned into an
administrator with full power after Sargsyan was killed in the parliament of the country on October 27,
1999. Objectively, the positions of the army and war veterans weakened in the politics of Armenia.
Appointing Kocharyan’s comrade in arms Serzh Sargsyan as a minister of defense of Armenia utterly
freed the political area from the influence of military commandment. That circumstance could be
evaluated as the first significant change to the Armenian political system.

The authoritarian system of power in Armenia was re-established within a year. With clever manpower
rearrangements, Kocharyan quickly managed to establish full control over the government and the army.
And one of the most successful decisions was recruiting one of the most authoritative supporters of
Sargsyan – the leader of then-oppositional Republican Party Andranik Margaryan – for the prime
minister’s position. There was a split among the opposition, and the resistance towards Kocharyan’s
power weakened. That situation persisted until the presidential elections in 2003. Further on, the second
significant amendment of the character of political system of Armenia took place. Under the ruling of
Kocharyan, whose authority drastically fell down after the complicated presidential elections in 2003,
the structure of the authorities changed. Objectively, the scheme of the power changed from
authoritarian to oligarchic. Formally, after the parliamentary elections in 2003, the authorities found
support in the parliamentary parties, having formed a pro-power coalition. However, in reality, the
backbone of support was big entrepreneurs, having obtained deputy mandates and high executive
positions. Actually, starting from 2003, the power in the country started becoming oligarchic.
That system of power was functioning on a number of basic conditions – monopolizing
financial/economic and informational resources, as well as agreements on splitting the areas of
influence. It became impossible to conduct serious political and entrepreneurial activities beyond the
president’s control. The same way, it became impossible to conduct serious informational activities in a
free regime. All the TV channels of the country appeared under the control of the highest authorities.

Law enforcement bodies became yet another support for the president – in particular, the extended
system of the police and internal troops. The army and the organized corpse of war veterans were moved
aside from politics and the influence upon economy. That scheme of power assumed full evening-out of
any oppositional activities, which was being achieved through bribery and separation of the oppositional
forces. Forces that refused to be controlled were subjected to repressions.

Economy
The main governmental strategy of the authorities under the ruling of Kocharyan was the focus on the
economic development. The programs of creating workplaces and solving social problems substituted
any ideologies and any strategies of state development. Very quickly, everything in the country started
being evaluated through the prism of financial opportunities. All the other areas of state life (culture,
education, sports, etc) turned up to be in full dependence of the central authorities. The area of activities
beyond the authorities’ control narrowed to the minimum.

It should be mentioned that the political system established in the country after 2003 created a bigger
degree of safe entrepreneurship for the power structure members, compared to the authoritarian system.
That aspect can be assessed as the change number 3, in its significance, in the life of Armenia. Taking
into consideration the circumstance that the economic activities were based on the system of quotas and
agreed split of the areas of influence, as well as regulated financial flows, large entrepreneurs obtained
an opportunity to drastically expand their activities. Correspondingly, an economic grow could be
noticed in the country, accompanied with the concentration of financial/economic opportunities in the
hands of the incumbent authorities.

Nevertheless, for the period from 2003 to 2007, it became possible in Armenia to conduct serious
construction projects, as well as to implement projects of state significance. The banking system got
seriously developed; the light industry and system of consumer service were formed. In the capital of the
country, large-scale housing construction projects started; national significance highways were
reconstructed, and the fleet of motor vehicles was intensely upgraded. It is true that external financial
investments and humanitarian aid played a significant role in it. The state budget significantly increased.

However, the above-mentioned system of economic development quickly led to a more material and
social stratification among the citizens. A significant part of the citizens turned up below the poverty
line. The share of black economy increased to extraordinary levels. A gap could be noticed between the
development of Yerevan and Armenian regions. With the increase of social problems, such a
development even more paralyzed the political life. Taking into consideration the fact that the
political/economic system created in the country has drastically restricted the opportunities for political
activeness, conducting free elections became impossible. This way, the ruling elite created guarantees
against any political changes.

Changes to the Constitution of the country that were accepted in 2005 were intended just to increase the
chances of parliamentary forces to rule the state. In practice, the oligarchic system just obtained
additional opportunities for securing their stability. Constitutional mechanisms did not have a chance to
take root in the political life. They turned out to be just a tribute to the commitments of Armenia to
external structures. And here, it is worth talking about the specific nature of the external political
activities of Armenia in the years of presidency of Kocharyan.

External policy
The above-mentioned internal and economic politics required significant external support. Serious
guarantees were needed in order to conduct such a voluntary policy, completely ignoring the opinion of
the Armenian public. The authorities of Armenia saw such a guarantee in the factor of patronage of
Russia. And it is not by chance that the essence of all the external policy of Robert Kocharyan came
down to consolidating the military/political and economic relations with Russia.

The loyalty of the Armenian public towards the fact of the placement of Russian bases in its territory, as
well as the “persuasiveness” of the thesis of the authorities on the possibility of economic development
in the conditions of the blockade of borders, made it easier for the authorities to promote their pro-
Russian orientation. The crowning achievement of that policy was giving away practically all the
strategically-important energy and communication objects to Russian enterprises. And, naturally, the
Russian authorities were supposed to render all possible support to its allies not only inside the country
but also in their relations with the countries of the West.

This way, the Armenian authorities secured a basis for strengthening their positions in relation with the
USA and European structures. Such a position turned out to be favorable owing to the fact that Armenia,
in the above-mentioned period joined the Council of Europe, which presented more requirements to the
authorities in the issues of democratizations of the country. Opposing such requirements could be
possible only in case of serious patronage on behalf of Russia. And the relevance of opposing originated
from the very essence of the internal policy, not admitting any democratization.

Whether president Kocharyan wanted it, or not, such a policy led to a total opposing of the West to the
Armenian authorities by the end of his term. That opposition was being specifically expressed in
toughening the policy concerning the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh and in the area of the relations of
Armenia with Turkey. The authorities of Armenia started to hide the attempts of evening out the created
situation with “nationalist” slogans – in particular, by the intensive “spread” of the issue of
acknowledging the Genocide in 1915, demonstration of a threat of a one-sided acknowledgment of
Nagorno-Karabakh, etc. Actually, all the external politics was intended to secure the stability of the
internal political strategy, under no circumstances solving the external challenges created around
Armenia.

However, since the truce continued at the front of Karabakh, and economy kept growing, there were no
specific complaints against the external politics of the authorities in the country for a long time. The
policy of total proximity to Russia did not evoke specific squabbles, too.

***
However, it could be expected that, by the end of Kocharyan’s presidency, the results of economic
growth accompanied with political stagnation and unfair system of distributing the results of economic
development would drastically increase the social displeasure among the public. Meanwhile, the fact of
the public helplessness against the political/economic realities in the country played its role, too. The
circumstance that the existing oppositional parties have lost their influence, the authorities were
intensifying their repressiveness, and the gap between the authorities and the public was deepening,
brought to a state where the hopes for any radical changes were giving out year by year.

Moreover, in 2006 already, serious transformations began in the system of power, proven by the act of
the ruin of the ruling coalition in 2006, in connection with the fact that Country of Legality left it. The
fact that president Kocharyan chose to form the second party related to the authorities, in the person of
the party Prosperous Armenia, showed that the system of the authorities, in the way it is described, loses
its stability.

Nevertheless, Kocharyan did not express his readiness for a serious transformation of the system of
power, as a result of which, in 2007 yet another act of consolidation of large proprietors (oligarchs) took
place – for this time, in the framework of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia. Parliamentary
elections in 2007 demonstrated that the president of the country turned out to be powerless against that
tendency. All the oppositional parties turned out in the same state. It is clear that the discontent in the
country about the fact of the existing political stagnation was supposed to drastically increase.

Actually, the protesting society for a long time turned out to be without an effective and acceptable
political force, which made itself felt in the period of the presidential elections in 2008. The first
president of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrossian managed for a short period of time to mobilize a significant
part of the society around him and declaring about a serious battle against the authorities.

As a result of the presidential elections in 2008, the incumbent authorities of Armenia lost political
control over the processes in the country and had to resort to violence. The conflict between the
authorities and the public reached its high point. That was the circumstance that marked the end of
Robert Kocharyan’s presidency. The power was thrown over his closest comrade in arms Serzh Sargsyan
and the stability in the country lost its basis for good. The “inauguration” of Sargsyan in the ring of the
“military parade” became the symbol of the epoch of Robert Kocharyan’s presidency. The fate of
Kocharyan remains vague.

Manvel Sargsyan, independent expert

[from e-channel.am, april 14, 2008]