Special for the Armenian Weekly
A casual look at the Armenian political scene makes the following apparent: (1) Serge Sarkisian is the alpha male in the Armenian political “jungle.” (2) He is in absolute control (as the term “absolute” is generally understood). L’affaire Tsarukian was significant, not for the handful of reasons that might be cited for its happening, but for Sarkisian’s response that brought it to a quick and peaceful end. It was an exercise in raw political power that was meant to serve as an object lesson to other oligarchs as well as to opposition leaders who, like Gagik Tsarukian, might overestimate their capabilities to challenge his administration. One might say that the subtext of the lesson to be learned was that oligarchs should be content with their wealth and tend to their business interests.
President Sarkisian and Gagik Tsarukyan (Photo: Slaq.am)
The immediate catalyst for this political tempest was Artak Khachatryan, a vocal critic of the administration who sits on the governing council of the Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP). He was active in representing the interests of small businessmen protesting changes in the Law on Turnover Tax. Although the tax had been reduced, the provision relating to accounting for the turnover of goods was objectionable because it would be difficult to comply with.
Soon thereafter, following a rally before the government building, Khachatryan was snatched off the street in Yerevan, beaten, and left bruised and battered on a street near his home. Who was responsible can only be conjectured. Should we take comfort in the fact that he did not meet the same fate as Boris Nemtsov, an outspoken critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin who was assassinated recently as he crossed Red Square with a companion? Obviously this type of action, no matter who the perpetrators might be or the reason behind it, has a chilling effect on all forms of public dissent. Khachatryan’s ordeal led to finger-pointing by members of PAP and counter-charges by members of the president’s Republican Party. This back and forth provided no answers and only served to escalate the confrontation.
Tsarukian continued to press his attack on the failed economic policies of the Sarkisian Administration and the need for regime change. It was the pot calling the kettle black. Tsarukian is a wealthy businessman who has benefitted from insider connections and has done his share with his oligarchic contemporaries to limit competition and entrepreneurial opportunity in the marketplace, protecting and advancing his business interests.
Sarkisian was less than kind by inferring that Tsarukian had limited intellectual capacity and that he was an impediment to development; he also questioned Tsarukian’s ability to lead a political party. Not knowing when he was already on the losing end of the confrontation, Tsarukian announced that PAP, the Armenian National Congress, and Raffi Hovanissian’s Heritage Party would hold an anti-administration rally. If we recall, Hovanissian had convinced himself that he had won the 2013 presidential election. Sarkisian patiently allowed Hovanissian to self-destruct in public as he brashly demanded that Sarkisian (who was reelected) resign and that snap parliamentary election be held, through on-again-off-again hunger strikes and rallies. Unfortunately, a similar fate awaited Gagik Tsarukian. Within a short time the political drama ended and harmony reigned once again. Statements were issued by the capitulating side that tended to paint the existence of a crisis situation having been averted. PAP issued a statement cancelling the Feb. 20 rally because of the “…extremely tense and emotional condition[that exists]…and to avoid potential provocations and clashes.” Tsarukian’s statement said that “No objective can justify the shedding of even one person’s blood. All issues must be resolved peacefully, legally, and through political avenues.” For good measure, Hovanissian had to add this dramatic end-piece: “The fight is on… Today we have appeared in an unprecedented political and civil situation, which demands an immediate and complete solution.” Comments such as this without any follow-through only add to voter cynicism and are better left unsaid.
Days later at a PAP convention, Tsarukian resigned as party chairman, ostensibly to oversee his business empire. It seems likely that he will vacate his seat in parliament as well. Party secretary Naira Zohrabyan was named chairwoman. PAP was now designated as an opposition party. Was resignation the price Tsarukian had to pay for confronting Sarkisian in public? If so, it was a bearable price to pay. It was better than losing part or all of his oligarchic gained fortune. Already, there have been some defections from the party. Since there are no ideological ties that bind members to the party, any decision to leave is made significantly easier.
What this political squabble reaffirmed is that Sarkisian is firmly in power. He controls all the levers of government. As brought out in previous articles, he will continue in power at least through the next election cycle in 2018 by hand-picking the Republican Party’s presidential candidate. Barring some tectonic shift in the political landscape, Armenia is expected to become a parliamentary republic possibly in 2016. Whether or not Sarkisian remains the public face of Armenia, his Republican Party will most likely retain its dominant position. Unless Sarkisian has an epiphany, the near future will not differ much from the present.
If any meaningful change is ever to come about, the political parties must put aside their differences and personalities for the common good, which is to curtail the onerous effect of one-party rule and the stranglehold that monopolists have on economic development. Unfortunately, this cannot be accomplished until the Armenian people accept their role in seeking change. It is the responsibility of the opposition political leaders to harness this critical support. Without their participation, change is impossible. Although the electorate represents numerous groups with different interests and different needs, it is up to the opposition leaders to find commonalities that can unite agricultural families, the urban employed, the unemployed, small businessmen, pensioners, university students, and those below the poverty level, among others, to literally chip away, piece by piece, at the existing power structure. It is no easy task to accomplish, but significantly more doable than regime change in one fell swoop. We should eliminate regime change from our vocabulary. It has been bandied about so often that it no longer has any credibility as an objective. Something else that should be considered is that many Armenians do believe that Sarkisian is the right leader at the right time given the volatility of the situation in the South Caucasus.
Unfortunately, at the present time there is no identifiable individual who has the ability and the desire to lead an effective movement to bring about change. Until that someone appears, and the political parties are able to overcome ideologies and personalities to work cooperatively, and the people are actively engaged in securing their own future. Armenia will continue to belong to the Republican Party, Serge Sarkisian, and the oligarchs.
The post L’affaire Tsarukian: A Mismatch from the Get-Go appeared first on Armenian Weekly.