"Fact" daily writes:
One of the key features of the political discourse formed in the domestic political life of Armenia after 2018 was that the current government based its legitimacy on two fundamental theses.
The first was related to the claim that their government has the support of the people. The second key thesis referred to the qualitative change of electoral processes, in particular, the fact that electoral frauds are excluded, administrative pressures are eliminated, and citizens' will is protected from any interference.
These two theses were the main pillars of the political self-presentation of the government for a long time and, in fact, were the ideological foundation on which the entire "post-revolutionary" political system was built.
However, the trends in the development of political processes show that over time these two key theses have faced a serious test.
The developments surrounding the recent election processes, the contestation of the election results, the accusations made by the political forces, as well as the processes started in the legal sphere prove that the political narrative formed by the government for years is simply collapsing.
First of all, it is necessary to address the thesis about popular support. For a long time, the representatives of the government emphasized that they represent the will of the absolute majority of the people and have a nationwide mandate. Pashinyan even justified their actions on behalf of the people, even though those actions contradicted the letter and spirit of democracy. However, in political theory, the concept of "popular government" implies not only the fact of victory in the elections, but also the presence of a broad public consensus.
If the government does not receive the support of the absolute majority of voters, then the application of the "all-popular" definition already becomes, to put it mildly, controversial. In the elections held on June 7, the CP did not receive more than 50 percent of the votes of the citizens who participated in the elections, and this means that, by simple mathematical calculation, most of the voters rejected the political agenda and steps of the current government.
Under these conditions, it will be frivolous for the government to continue talking about how their agenda represents the political will of the entire people or even the majority of the people. Even more so when it comes to a situation where the government participated in the elections with significant institutional advantages. It is accepted in political science that a number of advantages naturally exist for the government: access to administrative resources, control of the state administration system, informational advantages, the possibility of direct communication with foreign partners, as well as the monopoly of forming the state agenda.
And in the case of Armenia, the RA authorities deployed the entire base of administrative resources, used the levers of the law enforcement system in order to persecute the representatives of the opposition and discredit them, there was absolutely unequal competition.
On the other hand, the government had the great support of the West, which was also expressed on a public level, unconcealed, openly. Even if the government is unable to secure a majority under all these possibilities, it speaks of a significant decrease of trust in the agenda of the ruling power within the society and a very small number of "pure" votes for the political power itself.
In this case, it is hard not to agree with the second president of RA, Robert Kocharyan, that if such resources were possessed by an absolutely unknown figure or political force, especially if foreign leaders were involved in his favor, then that force would not get less votes than the current government.
As for the theses related to free, fair and competitive elections, it was also crushed during these elections. It is noteworthy that a number of political forces that participated in the elections questioned the legitimacy of these elections.
And this is in the case when Pashinyan announced years ago that "I will cut off my hands, I will not stick to a ballot paper of an Armenian citizen". The fact that seven political forces appealed to the Constitutional Court, disputing the results of the elections, is itself an important political indicator.
Regardless of what the court will decide, there is already a situation where trust in the electoral process has been seriously questioned by a significant part of the political field.
In democratic systems, the legitimacy of elections depends not only on the observance of legal procedures, but also on the acceptability of the results by political entities and society. If a significant part of the political forces that participated in the elections declare that the elections did not reflect the true will of the citizens, or that there were manipulations, then this indicates the existence of a crisis of confidence in the political system.
After all, any political force without political grounds usually does not apply to the highest constitutional court of the country, because such a step implies not only legal, but also political responsibility. Particularly sensitive is the issue that, according to critics, as a result of some manipulations that took place during the electoral processes, a political force that actually passed the temporary threshold was left out of the parliament.
Even if we assume that it refers to the difference of about three thousand votes, this in itself means the nullification of about 60 thousand votes, moreover, the actual usurpation of mandates by the current government.
Accordingly, the problem is not only arithmetical. The peculiarity of the parliamentary electoral system is that in proportional systems, even a relatively small number of votes can significantly change the distribution of mandates. In other words, it is not only about a few thousand votes, but also a change in parliamentary representation, political pluralism and the ratio of the government and the opposition.
If in fact, as a result of electoral manipulation, the political force was deprived of the opportunity to enter the parliament, then this is not a separate election violation, but a problem of political representation. In that case, it refers to the actual disregard of the political will of tens of thousands of citizens and the violation of the internal balance of the parliamentary system.
And if mandates are redistributed as a result of the non-representation of any political force, then the configuration of the entire political system changes, which can have an impact on further legislative and political processes.
All this testifies to the deep crisis of the "post-revolutionary" political model. If the main source of political legitimacy in 2018 was the revolutionary mandate, then over time this mandate should turn into institutional legitimacy.
And institutional legitimacy is possible only when there is universal trust in the electoral system, political competition is considered fair, and the defeated parties are ready to accept the results.
Today, however, it is obvious that such a consensus does not exist in the political field. On the contrary, a situation is forming when the main political theses of the government - popular support and flawlessness of the elections - are simply collapsing.
As a result, the political system faces a new reality and crisis, where the government will not have to refer to the events of 2018 or previous achievements, but to prove its legitimacy in every new political process.
Details in today's issue of "Past" daily
