Nations in Transit 2009 - Armenia
| Publisher | Freedom House |
| Author | Aleksander Iskandaryan |
| Publication Date | 30 June 2009 |
| Cite as | Freedom House, Nations in Transit 2009 - Armenia, 30 June 2009, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/4a55bb3845.html [accessed 26 May 2023] |
| Disclaimer | This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States. |
by Aleksander Iskandaryan
Capital: Yerevan
Population: 3.0 million
GNI/capita: US$5,870
The data above was provided by The World Bank, World Bank Indicators 2009.
Nations in Transit Ratings and Averaged Scores
| 1999- 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | |
| Electoral Process | 5.25 | 5.50 | 5.50 | 5.50 | 5.75 | 5.75 | 5.75 | 5.75 | 5.50 | 5.75 |
| Civil Society | 3.50 | 3.50 | 3.50 | 3.50 | 3.50 | 3.50 | 3.50 | 3.50 | 3.50 | 3.75 |
| Independent Media | 4.75 | 4.75 | 4.75 | 5.00 | 5.25 | 5.50 | 5.50 | 5.75 | 5.75 | 6.00 |
| Governance* | 4.50 | 4.50 | 4.50 | 4.75 | 4.75 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| National Democratic Governance | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.25 | 5.25 | 5.75 |
| Local Democratic Governance | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 5.50 | 5.50 | 5.50 | 5.50 | 5.50 |
| Judicial Framework and Independence | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.25 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.25 | 5.50 |
| Corruption | 5.75 | 5.75 | 5.75 | 5.75 | 5.75 | 5.75 | 5.75 | 5.75 | 5.75 | 5.50 |
| Democracy Score | 4.79 | 4.83 | 4.83 | 4.92 | 5.00 | 5.18 | 5.14 | 5.21 | 5.21 | 5.39 |
* Starting with the 2005 edition, Freedom House introduced separate analysis and ratings for national democratic governance and local democratic governance to provide readers with more detailed and nuanced analysis of these two important subjects.
NOTE: The ratings reflect the consensus of Freedom House, its academic advisers, and the author(s) of this report. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s). The ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest level of democratic progress and 7 the lowest. The Democracy Score is an average of ratings for the categories tracked in a given year.
Executive Summary
The initial years following Armenia's 1991 declaration of independence were marred by the territorial conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh which turned to war, leading to a blockade, energy crisis and overall collapse of Armenia's economy. By the 1994 ceasefire, over a fourth of Armenia's population had emigrated due to poverty and the authorities were losing popularity. The reputation of the government was further weakened by tarnished elections, the 1998 forced resignation of president Levon Ter-Petrossian, and the 1999 shootings in parliament in which the Prime Minister and 7 other officials were killed. At the same time, radical market reforms enabled rapid economic growth, which reached over 13 percent annually in 2003-2008. Yet, despite a growing job market in agriculture, food industry, construction, services and tourism, social expectations, especially among the urbanized educated populace, remain unmet and feed into a growing pessimism concerning politics and economics. Furthermore, while the opposition has challenged the results of every national election since 1995, they are passive between elections, poorly consolidated, and heavily reliant on personalities rather than issue-based programs.
Presidential elections held on February 19, 2008 unfurled into a major political crisis leaving the country in a state of shock and polarization. On March 1, ten people were killed and up to 200 injured when authorities used excessive force to disperse an opposition mobilized protest rally in the capital. Outgoing President Robert Kocharian declared a twenty-day state of emergency. Over one hundred persons were arrested, and many were either convicted or still awaiting trial by the end of 2008. By autumn, society lapsed back into apathy and the opposition became marginalized. The crisis exposed the immaturity of Armenia's democratic institutions and lack of alternatives to political elites. The authorities attempted to boost their standing in the society following the crisis by introducing new measures to combat corruption and increase transparency.
National Democratic Governance. Democratized under 2005 constitutional amendments, Armenia's legislation provides for pluralism and rule of law but executive authorities continue to dominate in governance. Success in 2008 included rapid economic growth and good progress with integration into the European Neighborhood. However, low standing of the government in the society and the opposition's determination to reverse the election outcomes led to a political crisis in March 2008, followed by a 20-day emergency rule. Despite government moves to consolidate society, social pessimism remains a concern. Reflecting the fact that government used force to handle mass protests, and the resulting damage to the reputation of Armenia's governance system, the rating for national democratic governance is downgraded from 5.25 to 5.75.
Electoral Process. Armenia has a progressive legislative framework for the conduct of elections. The 2008 presidential election was competitive; according to international observers, the election was mostly in line with international standards in the pre-election period and during voting hours. However, serious challenges to some commitments emerged after election day. The opposition refused to recognize the official results and sustained mass protests which were dispersed by the police, leading to ten deaths and hundreds of wounded. On account of the violent post-electoral developments, and low public trust in elections, the rating for electoral process worsens from 5.50 to 5.75.
Civil Society. The legal and political environment for NGO activity is generally favorable, civil society organizations are active and play an important role in forming public opinion. NGOs were actively involved in monitoring the 2008 election and post-electoral developments. However, NGOs remain concentrated in the capital and major cities, and largely dependent on foreign funding for their sustainability. Their social base remains narrow, and grassroots ties are weak. Furthermore, the authorities continue to perceive NGOs as hostile actors or political competitors, especially those working on democracy promotion, and have worked to oppose and undermine their efforts. Armenia's rating for civil society worsens from 3.50 to 3.75.
Independent Media. Broadcast media coverage of the 2008 presidential election showed technical improvements and was balanced in terms of airtime distribution but the tone was still biased in favor of the coalition candidate. Print and online media were plural but failed to reach a significant sector of the society. Given the de facto censorship imposed during the emergency rule, and the overall failure of most broadcast media to ensure fair coverage of the 2008 presidential election, the rating for independent media is downgraded from 5.75 to 6.00.
Local Democratic Governance. Armenia's local self-government is clearly defined by the legislation, instituting representative and executive bodies in each of Armenia's 930 communities. However, their authority is limited and administrative control remains strong, despite steps taken in 2008 to harmonize self-government practices with the 2005 constitutional amendments. Local elections in 2008 were highly competitive in many communities, but marred by insufficient transparency and some unrest. The rating for local democratic governance remains unchanged at 5.50.
Judicial Framework and Independence. In 2008, important reforms implemented in the judicial framework were expected to ensure the transparency, professionalism and independence of the judiciary. However, arrests, investigations, and trials in connection with the March 1 violence were marred by serious irregularities, including convictions based solely on police testimony, credible allegations of torture and politically motivated charges. Undemocratic amendments made to the law on conducting meetings, assemblies, rallies and demonstrations, were later revoked under international pressure. The rating for judicial framework and independence worsens from 5.25 to 5.50.
Corruption. Corruption remains the major deterrent to Armenia's democratic development and perception of corruption in Armenia worsened slightly in 2008. Based on a new anti-corruption strategy for 2008-2012, the government launched a campaign against corruption combining legislative measures and reform of public services, with an emphasis on tax and customs bodies. Yet, only mid-level officials were prosecuted on corruption charges in 2008. As the results of the anti-corruption campaign remain to be seen, and the consistency of government measures is not obvious, Armenia's corruption rating improves only slightly from 5.75 to 5.50.
Outlook for 2009. The main challenge for Armenia in 2009 will be the emergence of a viable opposition providing a channel for political protests and overcoming the great divide within society. The government will likely focus on sustaining economic growth and attracting investment while the global economic crisis poses the threat of reducing the investments and transfers that play such an important role in the Armenian economy. Anti-corruption efforts may succeed in some areas, but most likely, not in a consistent way. US-Russian competition in the region will enable Armenia to continue balancing among external stakeholders and achieving gradual rapprochement with Europe, but without an emphasis on resolving the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.
