Yerevan – In the nearly two weeks since the conclusion of the presidential elections, a steady stream of congratulatory notes have been coming in from presidents and leaders around the world.

It is clear that the Armenian Diaspora is still living a sense of anxiety, however. Armenia did not meet the high expectations of the Armenian Diaspora or of the international community.

While there has been much hand-wringing and preaching in the West, and mudslinging and accusations here at home, Armenia’s authorities are working to understand how to remedy the process, how to hold accountable those who are responsible and how to move on to better parliamentary elections.

We have two months to do some clear-headed analysis of what went right and what went wrong – why and how -- and most importantly, how to fix as much as possible. The President has himself already met with various political parties. He has convened a high-level group to develop a strategy that must and will entail studying the observers’ reports and following through with identifying and correcting the irregularities and violations. At the same time, we must highlight, stress, and generally give credit for all that was done appropriately and in accordance with the principles we have chosen to adopt and the standards we have elected to meet.

During the presidential elections, the highly charged emotional atmosphere, the overzealous loyalty of campaigners especially in outlying areas, the personalized grievances amongst candidates all resulted in breaches of the law. In some cases, the violations were quite intentional. In other cases, they were the result of ignorance or inadequate legal provisions. Regardless of the cause, the effect was infractions in about 13 percent of all electoral stations. In the remaining 87 percent, the OSCE report read that “Observers reported that in general technical procedures were correctly followed and assessed the process positively.”

The observers’ reports detail the impact of the failures and the significance of the successes of these fourth presidential elections. Our public must do both as well.

Just as Armenia often misjudges and misunderstands the Diaspora, the Diaspora, too, has not yet fully understood Armenia and its growing pains. The observers’ complaints and charges refer to the electoral process, not its results. No international observers or agencies are questioning the validity of the outcome.

The world uses elections to judge how committed countries in transition from authoritarian to democratic systems are to new principles and standards. They don't expect perfection necessarily, but they expect progress.

In our case, progress has been made. Gone are the 1998 complaints about bad electoral law, bad voter lists, poorly marked ballots and inaccessible ballot boxes. This time around, voter lists were more accurate, and the judicial system worked promptly to immediately include those who were still left out. Old ballot boxes were replaced by transparent, tamper-proof boxes supplied by OSCE member states. The election law was deemed adequate and acceptable by international agencies.

However, other serious charges remain, chief among them being biased media coverage; unequal access to administrative resources; mistakes in final tabulation, including implausible figures and implications of fraudulent counting and stuffing of ballot boxes.

Although there is much that must be accepted, investigated and corrected, there is also much that can be disputed about the observers’ observations, interpretations and allegations.

But not about media coverage. Twelve years after independence, it is an inarguable fact that Armenia’s media (and the Diaspora’s too) is agenda-driven, biased in favor of this or that party or sponsor, and lacks sufficient resources or know-how to tackle the difficult topics honestly and thoroughly. This is true throughout the year, and on all issues. So it should come as no surprise that it was also the case during the two-month election cycle, and the period leading up to it. Unfortunately, no institution in Armenia or the Diaspora has stepped up to the plate and taken on the serious responsibility of developing serious media in Armenia. The long-term implications of this huge void are ominous and need to be addressed urgently by the whole society, both in and outside of Armenia.

The short-term impact, too, has been disastrous, especially for the Diaspora. The news that reached the Diaspora through local newspapers or through the Internet was culled from Armenia’s print media. The opposition newspapers, which constitute the bulk of the print media, “showed clear bias against the incumbent and offered a platform to his opponent” according to the OSCE observers. Therefore, given the print media’s overwhelmingly clear partisanship, with a clear campaign of vilification, the “reporting” about incidents, percentages, rallies, all must be viewed as an extension of that same biased, exaggerated propaganda.

Thus, just as we accept the observers’ other criticisms, we must also accept the print media’s one-sidedness. Therefore, while this was not a perfect election, it was light-years away from the crooked picture painted for the Diaspora.

Locally, this distortion was offset by public and private broadcasters’ television coverage which was tilted in favor of the President.

On the other hand, Armenia’s regulations on access to television time are far more generous than in many countries. Here, not only does a candidate have equal access to time, the candidate actually receives an equal amount of free time. So, during the first round, all 11 candidates each had 60 minutes of free time to use during the course of 3 weeks. As it turned out, since 10 of the candidates were unified in their opposition to the President, that meant that 600 minutes of free air time was used to criticize and berate the President, while the President’s campaign had 60 minutes. Each candidate also could use up to 120 minutes of paid time.

The observers have said that the republic’s administrative resources were more available to the incumbent, than to the other candidates during this election. Administrative resources refer to the use of public spaces during the campaign. President Kocharian’s campaign paid for and rented space in various public buildings throughout Armenia. Other candidates sometimes also rented space in such buildings. In other cases they didn’t, not because they were turned away, but because they never asked, convinced as they were that they’d be turned down. This Soviet-era thinking – beaten before you start – coupled with Soviet-era town planning, where the only public spaces in most villages and towns are either schools or cultural halls, resulted in the problem that the observers noted. The next election cycle will have to include an education campaign to alert candidates that they can indeed consider renting public spaces and they will be invited to do so.

Observers detected tabulation mistakes and discrepancies in the number of votes received by all candidates from the local to the territorial and national levels. The differences are sometimes to one candidate’s advantage and sometimes to another’s. The CEC explains this as tabulation error or data entry error, regrettable and definitely in need of improvement.

Foreign observers unfamiliar with local conditions considered it implausible that certain precincts could be overwhelmingly for Demirchian while there was equally staggering, seemingly exaggerated support for Kocharian in the immediately adjacent precinct. On the other hand, Armenia’s reality is that a certain village may have a factory or other source of employment, while the neighboring village does not. This will, naturally, influence the way the residents vote. In the final analysis, the two sets of figures next to each other may appear implausible, but there may also be a very real explanation.

The same is true of tampering with numbers during the vote count. For example, one set of observers noted that the local electoral commission locked the doors at 8 pm when voting ended, in order to eat before continuing with the count. Another set of observers whose own local commission also locked the doors at 8 pm in order to eat before continuing, considered that dinner break stalling. Which is it?

Does this mean that there was no manipulation of numbers? Admittedly, it does not. By the observers’ own accounts, there was, and in the final round, the manipulation was to the benefit of both candidates. But it was not the endemic, widespread, across-the-board failure some have made it out to be. In each instance where such numbers have been noted, they have been so small as not to have any influence on the outcome. Still, they are still a clear indication that the process has serious shortcomings, and whether they were errors or intentional manipulation, such practices must be removed.

Ballot stuffing, too, has been ascribed to both candidates in the second round, and several candidates in the first. In general, observers charged ballot stuffing in some 70 polling places – less than 5% of all precincts. The numbers of false ballots did not exceed 100 in any precinct. As a result, a total of less than 10,000 or less than one percent of the total vote. This small percentage has succeeded in throwing a pall over our elections.

Those who thought they were helping the incumbent or his challenger did neither one a service. Indeed, they did Armenia and Armenians a great disservice. And perhaps intentionally. Some of the ballots which were thrown into the boxes – those marked Kocharian as well as those marked Demirchian – are such obvious fakes that one can’t help but wonder if they were done intentionally – not to back a candidate, but to cast doubt over the polling process itself. This is not a cynical suggestion, given that the Demirchian camp went so far as to forge letters which were ostensibly from the Governor of California and a Senator from California. Such ruses could easily be part of a larger campaign of dirty tricks, not unknown in other countries and in other campaigns.

President Kocharian spent the month prior to the election, as well as the weeks between the two rounds, emphasizing that no one needed clean elections more than he. The opposition, which knew months earlier that it had no chance of winning – their own polls had indicated this – also was very aware that Kocharian needed clean elections. Therefore, if they couldn’t beat him at the ballot box, they tried to beat him on the international stage by tarnishing the entire political life of the country itself.

While irregularity or fraud are committed by parties or people around certain candidates, the ultimate discredit goes to all of Armenia. The outsiders do not distinguish because they are not there to determine individual culpability. It is all of Armenia’s reputation and standing that suffers because the ultimate evaluation is about the country as a whole.

For Armenia, a campaign that was generally void of any discussion of issues became the stage on which various personal vendettas were fought.

The opposition was maximally engaged in what had become a battle for political life or death.

To understand the polarized, emotional, personalized election campaign, one must understand the following political context.

First, since 1997-98, when President Ter Petrossian resigned, and President Kocharian took office, there has been great bitterness on the part of the former ruling party to 'get back' at Kocharian.

Second, since1999, when Parliament Speaker Karen Demirchian and Prime Minister Vazgen Sargsian were assassinated, there has been a feeling of victimhood among their political allies. There has been a special sense of entitlement on the part of Demirchian's son and Sargsian's brother who have considered themselves their political heirs. This thinking is partly the result of machinations by other political players who see their path to power through these two somewhat popular, totally inexperienced individuals.

Since 1998, President Kocharian has indeed very quietly managed to rid the ranks of government of several individuals for their illicit activities. They too, are, for obvious reasons, looking for ways to re-appear in positions of power.

The 12% economic growth of this year provided the incumbent with an obvious advantage. Partially as a result of this phenomenon, the president’s ratings going into the elections were unusually high – often above 50%. The people’s desire for a sense of continuity in turn created a sense of hopelessness and despair in the opposition, which realized that if they don’t win now, for the next five years their chances for political survival will be extremely small.

Against this background, the presidential election was the stage on which these various agendas were played out. That is why calls for the president’s resignation and for a change of power had been heard for six months, long before than the beginning of the election period. That is why no issues were discussed, and the campaign consisted of charges and allegations.

Despite efforts to demean Armenia and diminish its standing, however, Armenia registered a number of successes in these elections. These deserve to be recognized in order to strengthen the hands of those who made the system work, and to empower the electorate to be more assertive and self-assured in the May Parliamentary elections.

Observers admit that part of their negative assessment is conditioned by the fact that Armenia has always been held to higher standards than other countries in the region. This may have adverse immediate affects, but in the long term, it’s a credit to Armenia.

Armenia has met some of these expectations.

For the first time ever in the former Soviet Union, the top candidates for presidential office faced off in a live, televised debate. Those sitting in the West may discount such a standard election event, but in Armenia, this was indeed a first. It wasn’t just the candidates themselves whose first debate made history. In the weeks between the two rounds, high-level officials supporting each candidate also appeared on various channels and engaged in debate. These discussions were not always substantive. In fact, they were too often pure demagoguery. Nevertheless, it was the beginning of a process, and in the elections to come, voters will expect that contending candidates be prepared to face off and discuss issues.

Voters also saw that even in the former Soviet space, a government can indeed not tamper with voting results, even when the incumbent president’s first round total was just short of the required 50% + 1. This, too, will be a lesson they will want applied consistently in the future. It’s not a small victory.

Participation of all kinds was impressively high. The total number of candidates at one time exceeded a dozen and that is no small feat. Some of them were total unknowns and have since emerged as political figures. There was vociferous, loud, unrestrained campaigning by the candidates themselves and their backers. A large percentage of the electorate (64%) participated in the first round, and an even larger number voted in the second round. In the end, 1.5 million of our compatriots voted not only for this or that candidate but for their trust in democracy, in representative government, to express their concerns and their confidence in the future of their country. No one should question or underestimate the significance of their individual and collective act.

The participation of some 6000 local observers is also a welcome sign of an increased sense of civic responsibility and the maturation of civil society.

These facts and these interpretations are not ours alone; they are shared by international observers.

The large peaceful rallies, too, demonstrated engagement in the system. The numbers never approached the mythical hundreds of thousands that were bandied about, but still, when five to 25 thousand people take to the streets, that indicates that they are serious about their role in the political process. The observers said that among the positive elements visible in the period between the two rounds was the “continued wide-scale public participation in the election campaign, including through peaceful rallies.”

Even as we acknowledge that such participation is a positive sign, we realize that when citizens resort to rallies, it means that they do not believe that the system has provided them other reliable ways to express their discontent and their frustration; this lack of faith must be addressed.

It is also a positive fact of political life that negatively disposed candidates have actually chosen the legal process to seek redress. The Constitutional Court has received complaints from two of the candidates, and is addressing them.

These are all markers of a society that is in transition, in development. Armenians around the world have every right to take pride in their country which is learning as it grows. Armenians have no right to believe that each of these shortcomings or inadequacies is a sign of failure. They are not.

Finally, the greatest sign of progress is that all of the observers’ adverse reports were limited to a small percentage of polling stations. An overwhelming majority of observers reported that the election process was flawless. By the OSCE’s own assessment, irregularities were noted in 70 precincts (out of a total of 720 visited in the first round) and another dozen in the second round. This means that voting in the overwhelming majority of precincts (there were 1864 altogether) was conducted according to international standards. By their assessment, the elections themselves were well-administered.

Their assessments matter, of course, but it should be obvious to everyone that no one wants, needs or is committed to a transformation to a democratic society more than we here in Armenia. The reasons for this are many, but one is preeminent. Democracy is the only path that will allow our people – our most precious (and some would say only) resource – to achieve its full potential.

Observers considered the level of flaws and irregularities unacceptable. So do we.

Court proceedings have begun to secure recounts and determine other responsibilities.

Sitting in Yerevan, it is possible to explain the poisonous, vengeful tone of some of the local political players. But it is not possible to explain, let alone justify, a similar attitude in the Diaspora. The baseless, intolerant, ill-informed, hasty and often politically immature judgments and conclusions that pass for analysis are harmful and dangerous. Of course, most of those who have left their country, who have massively migrated, will be resentful or unhappy about their homeland. Nothing else could explain or justify the radical act of leaving one’s own fatherland. It is natural that their vision of Armenia, their appreciation of its life and leadership, is unavoidably and understandably tinged with dissatisfaction, regret and resentment.

Today, President Kocharian’s attention is focused on bringing the nation together as he did once before. He will look to enhance the successes of his first term. While it is up to him to earn the confidence and trust of those who did not vote for him, it is also important for those who opposed his reelection to join in improving the process and helping the nation make the gains it needs to make.

The Diaspora must join on the side of healthy reasoning and goodwill, rather than on the side of dismissive, cynical condemnation and reproach. Armenia is not a child to be judged and punished when it fails. It is a state in transition, taking small steps forward, and sometimes some steps backwards as well. It is a republic with an elected president committed to improving not just the electoral process but the mentality and the conditions around this process.

We must not be overwhelmed by the immensity of the task, or become impatient with the fact that nation-building is a long process and not a quick fix.