Polls and public research done in Armenia throughout the presidential election campaign appeared to confirm that the winner of this most recent election would in fact be the then-current president, Serzh Azati Sarksyan. In order, however, to properly understand the coming period in Armenia, it is important to examine the other prominent candidates from this race who, compared to previous election periods, enjoyed greater popularity with the public and more power on the national political stage.

For example, the leader of the Heritage Party, Raffi Hovhannisyan, has taken a close interest since 2011 in national problems, even implementing different protest techniques such as sit-in protests and hunger strikes.

In fact, that same year, Hovhannisyan managed to get himself talked about a lot just by shaving his moustache. During this latest campaign season, he managed to attract a lot of attention and raise his popularity through a series of promises he made to the people. Some of his assertions were that Nagorno-Karabakh would be recognized as a state, that relations between Turkey and Armenia would be improved and that Armenia as a nation would emerge from its regional confinement.

Another candidate who opposed Sarksyan this time around, and who resembled Hovhannisyan in terms of general influence and popularity, was Paruyr Hayrikyan. Hayrikyan, who was the target of an assassination attempt during the election campaign, is one of the most experienced names in Armenian politics and is known as someone who has made reasonable political suggestions since the time of Soviet power.

Additional candidates in the fray

These approaches by Hayrikyan, as well as the assassination attempt against him, showed everyone the kind of political pressures in Armenia. Another candidate this year was Andreas Ghukasyan, who leveled sharp criticism at Sarksyan, insisting that he shouldn’t be participating in these elections, and going on a hunger strike to protest Sarksyan’s candidacy. The only name to support Ghukasyan in this move was Hayrikyan, who joined the former for three days of his hunger strike, asserting that Sarksyan’s participation in the elections was a stain on democracy and an overshadowing of the fair election process. As for the campaign promises made by Hayrikyan, they were similar to those made by Hovhannisyan, mostly in regards to changing the path taken by Armenia. These promises included a generally anti-Russia overview, focusing on the Armenian constitution and deep-rooted changes to the legislative system, as well as the development of better relations with its neighbors in the region. Hayrikyan said he would reduce the number of seats in the Armenian parliament by half in order to speed up the legislative system and that he would push for a referendum in the first six months in order to completely change the country’s constitution. He also asserted that everything possible must be tried to save Armenia from Russian hegemony. He also underscored his belief that more positive policies on Nagorno-Karabakh were needed and that part of this would mean withdrawing from the talks on Nagorno-Karabakh and working in a calmer atmosphere. Putting the blame on Moscow for the assassination attempt against him, Hayrikyan asserted that Russia was still using its old ways and methods to stir up provocation against him. In other words, according to him, Russia still has indisputable influence in elections in Armenia. Yet another candidate, Aram Harutyunyan, argued that Hayrikyan was openly espousing an anti-Russian stance, and that this too was unacceptable.

In the end, no matter how many candidates presenting different suggestions and political ideas compete against one another in Armenia, it appears for now that tradition will not be broken in Yerevan and that the current leader holding power in his hands will carry on into the following term. It is quite difficult to assert that Armenia under Sarksyan will follow a different kind of politics in the coming term. This is because a whole range of policies — from strategic relations with Russia to the unchanging stances on Nagorno-Karabakh, the expectations from Turkey regarding 2015 and balancing politics against the European Union and NATO — look as if they will be carried on without much change. As it is, if one closely examines the visit made by the Russian defense minister to Armenia earlier this year, it appears clear that Russia will never want to lose the strong relations it enjoys with Armenia.

As regards the dimension of politics that directly concerns Turkey, preparations for the 100th anniversary of what Armenians say was the genocide in 1915 will be completed under the helm of the new president. As it is, Sarksyan has been sharply criticized by members of the Armenian diaspora in the past for his stance on this matter. It would be wrong to claim that Sarksyan is working alone. He wants to see the process of normalization between Armenia and Turkey completed and for economic relations between the two countries to strengthen. At the same time, though, the genocide issue remains the greatest barrier before all of this. For this reason, he will support every kind of effort to squeeze Turkey on the international front within the Armenia-diaspora-Karabakh triangle. Sarksyan’s Armenia-diaspora-Karabakh formulation could bring forward — within a strong political framework — a strong Armenia. At the same time, however, Armenia’s domestic political crisis involving Karabakh-Armenian politicians could wind up blocking the ability to implement this formula.

Serzh Sarksyan and recognizing Nagorno-Karabakh

As a soldier-politician with roots in Karabakh, Sarksyan embraces as a political axis the failure of the peace talks. As he sees it, the situation is actually necessary for Armenia’s own political endurance. Second, Sarksyan is opposed to the recognition of the so-called Nagorno-Karabakh administration as an independent state. In other words, he does not wish to see a second Armenian state in the Caucasus. There are many reasons — both on the domestic and the international front — for this. One reason is the desire to see the Karabakh lobby, which currently exists within the workings of the Armenian state, lose power in sliding over to another state. Another reason involves questions about whether an independent state of Nagorno-Karabakh would continue to receive the support of Russia. Of course, these are topics which deserve careful examination and which closely involve not only Turkey, but also Azerbaijan.

Mehmet Fatih ÖZTARSU