One of the most discussed topics in Armenia over the past month is the speech of Prime Minister Hovik Abrahamyan on May 12th at the government session. The Prime Minister, referring to the need to reassess the government's activity after the April war, pointed to the need for more effective work. Abrahamyan stated his intention to begin an active fight against corruption and monopolies, about plans to reduce the number of employees of the state apparatus, all unnecessary expenses, including work travel, the number of cars for officials and so on. The Prime Minister instructed the Ministry of the Economy and the State Commission for the Protection of Economic Competition (SCPEC) to study the existence of monopolies in the country and their impact on the conditions of fair competition. He assured that the funds saved will be used to resolve priority tasks, such as the provision of long-term economic growth.
Almost immediately, the heads of a number of corresponding departments stated that the work on fulfilling the instructions of the Prime Minister has already started. A plan to reduce the number of cars used by officials caused great interest in the media. It should be noted that the first of three phases of this plan proposed cutting 797 of the 1100 cars. Some media drew parallels between Armenia and the Nordic countries, where the budget is several dozen times larger than the Armenian budget, but the number of cars used by officials is 5-10 times less.
Meanwhile, Hovik Abrahamyan's speech, measures to reduce the number of officials, the number of their cars and other state apparatus expenses, as well as statements by various representatives of the authorities on the fight against corruption and monopolies provoked a suspicious, even negative reaction among the opposition, expert circles and representatives of civil society.
Today, many observers, public and political figures express serious doubt about the fact that the government was not aware of the dominant position of monopolies in the economy, or was not aware of the widespread corruption that destroys all spheres of the country's life.
"Various international reports have repeatedly noted that the Armenian economy is oligarchic in nature, the monopolies and the reasons why they exist have been known for a long time. And Hovik Abrahamyan just studies whether there are monopolies or not," the head of the Vanadzor office of the Helsinki Civil Assembly Artur Sakunts says.
Even greater suspicion and dissatisfaction on the part of the opposition, NGOs and the public was caused by the recent statement of the Prime Minister, according to which, as a result of a three-week study of the situation, the government came to the conclusion that although formally there are no monopolies in markets of products of social importance, such as sugar, flour, oil, rice, poultry meat, medicine, gasoline, diesel fuel, they are still perceived by the public as monopolies. The reason is that these markets have a high level of centralization and there is a displacement of small and medium-sized businesses from the market. Abrahamian instructed the Minister of the Economy to develop clear guidelines with detailed descriptions of the processes for importing these products within a month.
According to some observers, if under an over-monopolized economy no preventive measures were taken against the oligarchs, or companies belonging to high-ranking officials or their relatives, it means that Armenia never carried out a serious fight against corruption and monopolies. But the current wave of the fight, initiated by the government, is just another manifestation of empty rhetoric.
Six non-governmental organizations presented practical proposals to the government on carrying out a real fight against corruption, underlining in a joint statement that the President's and the Prime Minister's promises to fight corruption and monopolies have not resulted in effective actions yet, and there is a deep distrust regarding the sincerity of this fight: "Corruption in Armenia has a systemic nature, and the fight against it can't be effective in the atmosphere of widespread impunity," the statement stresses.
According to the representative of the Anti-Corruption Center 'Transparency International', Heriknaz Tigranyan, SCPEC aims at small and medium-sized businesses, while those who have a monopoly in a specific sphere, or a company with the participation of high-ranking officials or their relatives, who misuse their dominant positions, are never fined. According to the vice-chairman of the opposition party 'Armenian National Congress' (ANC), Levon Zurabyan, the ANC expects that the government will take specific steps, in particular the persecution of thieving officials: "There is one unbiased indicator of the fact that there are no monopolies, – prices must fall for a long period of time."
The international organizations, which are usually quite tolerant of the numerous but unfulfilled promises of the Armenian authorities, also do not trust the new round of the "fight" against corruption and monopolies. For example, the head of the EU delegation to Armenia, Ambassador Peter Switalski, stated that the EU has allocated 15 million euros to Armenia for the fight against corruption, but he won't provide these funds to the government until he sees specific actions and progress in this direction.
Some analysts believe that the basis of this "fight" is the desire of the Armenian authorities to receive from the West at least small loans or grants (which, just like Russia, has not provided large loans for a long time already). After all, in the conditions of economic stagnation, these funds will play a significant role in resolving a number of important social issues, such as the payment of pensions and benefits, or the payment of salaries to employees of budgetary institutions.
However, this plan of the authorities can turn into a trap for them. At any time, the European structures can make adjustments to the formula "grants in exchange for the fight against corruption and monopolies," replacing the second term with the fulfillment of the condition of the Venice Commission on mandatory achievement of consensus on the issue of the new Electoral Code between the government and, on the other side, the opposition and civil society.
