There have been large protests against the increase in electricity tariffs for several days in Armenia. The scale of those actions, which involved up to 10-12 thousand people, and the high social activity and behaviour of the authorities of the country, have attracted the attention of expert circles in Armenia and abroad. Political scientist Arman Gevorgyan answered Vestnik Kavkaza's questions about the prospects of this movement.
- As you know, the Commission on the Regulation of Public Services (CRPS) took the decision to raise electricity prices. Was the decision of civil society activists to organize a protest at the presidential palace based on this expedient?
- Right now only a few people remember, but the Russian company Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA) filed an application to the CRPS on May 8 to increase tariffs by 40%. A few days before the decision of the CRPS, the prime minister and some members of the government started to make statements that tariffs cannot be increased by 40%. As you know, on June 17 the CRPS decided to increase tariffs by 16%. Thus, the rates were not raised by 40% but by 16%. The second important point: de jure, the CRPS is an independent body that makes or should make decisions on the basis of some objective data. Since Armenia is not a fully-fledged democratic country, of course the CRPS depends on the president and the government. On the other hand, neither the president nor the government can reverse the decision of a de jure independent commission. Only a court can undo the CRPS decision. A few years ago, the Armenian National Congress (ANC) filed a lawsuit with the Administrative Court against the decision of the CRPS to increase gas tariffs for the population. The ANC achieved nothing, but the legal route in this regard has been chosen correctly. From a legal standpoint, the president and the government do not have the authority to cancel the decisions of the CRPS. I think that whoever planned this action either did not understand that, or initially believed that this problem can be solved by organizing a protest near the presidential palace.
- On June 23, police used force against the protesters. The opposition, human rights activists, many Armenian and foreign media are concerned about the disproportionate use of force against peaceful demonstrators. Meanwhile, the police, in contrast to the events of March 1 of 2008, repeatedly warned people about the beginning of the dispersal operation.
- I draw attention to the statements of the police about the illegality of the action near the presidential palace. Meanwhile, there is an article in the law on mass events about spontaneous meetings and rallies. In this case, this action, which began on June 19 at Freedom Square, is spontaneous. Thus, the actions of the protesters are described in the article on spontaneus events. Another thing is that the protesters blocked one of the main highways of the capital. But we need to separate these two things.
Indeed, the protesters were repeatedly warned by the police about the beginning of the dispersal operation, and the use of special tools. In general, the police have left mixed feelings.
On the one hand, the police used water cannon for the dispersal, the use of which is very common all over the world to break up mass protests. Especially since near the morning there were fewer than a thousand people on Baghramian Avenue near the presidential palace, and it was relatively easy to scatter them in purely technical terms.
The fact that among those who dispersed the protesters were many people in civilian clothes is surprising. It was a very serious mistake by the police. Who were those people in civilian clothes, so actively involved in dispersing the demonstrators and actively attacking journalists? It was not a case where police officers in civilian clothes should have been involved: the police had enough people in uniform and means to disperse the demonstration in a civilized manner. On the other hand, it is not clear, if a man in civilian clothes attacks you and you have the right to self-defense, but in the end you may be accused of causing injuries to a policeman.
Secondly, it seems that the police did not understand that they have no right to interfere with the work of the press. If the police believe that they are operating correctly and within the law, then let the journalists film the dispersal operation. What could the problem be? Worldwide, the police do not hinder the work of the media. For example, in Israel, during the frequent clashes between the police and Arabs, nobody touches journalists.
- Today, some observers blame opposition parliamentary forces, saying that they are cut off from society, and that the opposition did not support the civil movement. Do you agree with these assessments?
- I think these allegations are absolutely baseless and wrong. Firstly, there are members of political parties among the demonstrators, they play a moderating role regarding the most radical demonstrators. Secondly, there are also representatives of ex-combatant organizations among the protesters, who also play a moderating role.
Those who accuse the parliamentary opposition of being inadequate, want completely different thing, using the fact that the owner of the electrical networks is a Russian company, they want to refocus the clock and make it an anti-Russian movement. The fact is that the Armenian opposition in its overwhelming majority is not anti-Russian. For the most part, it supported Armenia joining the Eurasian Economic Union. The opposition believes that the problems of Armenia are not in Moscow, Brussels or Washington, but in Armenia. Armenian opposition forces are opposing Serzh Sargsyan, not Vladimir Putin, as some of their critics wish.
- Some analysts in Moscow and abroad are trying to compare events in Baghramyan Avenue to Maidan. How justified are these comparisons?
- The Maidan was a demand for a change of political course. Maidan means a change of the foreign policy vector of a country or geopolitical orientation. Just as it was during the Rose Revolution in Georgia, and during Maidan-2 in Kiev. The protests in Armenia are not accompanied by such demands to change the foreign policy vector, or change the geopolitical vector. Assuming that a Maidan is a demand to change the geopolitical orientation, what happens in Armenia is not a Maidan. Another thing is that there are forces in Armenia, including those oriented toward external actors, who want to use the civil and social activity in order to change the foreign policy vector.
