Two years in a row an international watchdog Freedom House doesn’t register any change in Armenia in the direction of democracy and civil rights. “The impression is that in Armenia the situation is stagnant,” stated an expert of the Freedom House Catherine McAlec in her interview to Radio Liberty. She also added, “the main impression is that in Armenia the political situation is stagnant. The changes are intangible in both directions – positive and negative. The only improvement of 2011 was that the government cancelled its ban of allowing the opposition to hold rallies in the Liberty Square and entered into a dialog with the opposition. It also agreed to release the jailed oppositionists and expressed its commitment to investigating the 10 murder cases of March 1.” Despite these steps, the international organization two days ago released its report and once again rated Armenia as a “partially free” state, where there is no sufficient respect to political rights and political liberties. . The rule of law is weak and although there is some level of pluralism of opinions in the political field only one party prevails. “Yes, we positively grade the dialogue that started between the government and the opposition but we are skeptical about the outcomes. We are inclined to more skeptically viewing the launch dialogue because the impression was that whenever the government would encounter any unfavorable bump they would try to deflect from the process. So I wouldn’t say that the government was fully open and would wish for actual positive change,” said the American analyst and as evidence she brought up the last amendments of the electoral code. In her words, the demands of the opposition were not included, which will hardly conduce to a better conduct of elections in the future. Moreover, according to the convictions of international watchdogs Yerevan went forward to changes not because of its actual willingness but pressure from the international community and for the purpose of relieving the tension in the country because they had similar precedents in the Arab world and Middle East. “I wouldn’t say that these reforms were made due to the political will within the country. They were mostly done because of the fear of possible revolutions and uprisings similar to the cases in select Arab states,” stated the analyst of the Freedom House. She also emphasized, “They mostly had the goal to save the administration from elimination rather than improving the situation in the country.” When adverting to the promises of the government of holding the most transparent and free elections of the Armenian history the international organization states that for the time being there are no sufficient prerequisites for that. “I think the response of this question will become more clear next year when the reforms of the Electoral Code continue through the dialogue with the opposition. First of all the code must be enforced because only the adoption of the code doesn’t guarantee actual free elections,” stated the Freedom House expert during her interview to Radio Liberty.
