**REPORT ON ARMENIA�S PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION**
May 30, 1999
*This report is based on a Helsinki Commission staff delegation toArmenia from May 27 - June 2, 1999. Commission staff met privately withlocal journalists and then joined the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly�s observerdelegation, for whom Armenia�s parliament arranged meeting with politicalparties, the Central Election Commission and the Constitutional Court.Commission staff also consulted with the OSCE/ODIHR Election ObservationMission.*
*The Helsinki Commission would like to thank the OSCE ParliamentaryAssembly and Ambassador Michael Lemmon and the staff of the U.S. Embassyin Yerevan for their assistance.*
*After leaving Armenia, Commission staff traveled to Tbilisi, Georgiaand Baku, Azerbaijan. The Helsinki Commission would like to thank AmbassadorKenneth Yalowitz and the staff of the U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi and AmbassadorStanley Escudero and the staff of the U.S. Embassy in Baku for their assistance.*

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**
On May 30, 1999, Armenia held its second parliamentary election sincegaining independence. Twenty-one parties and blocs contested 56 seats setaside for party voting and over 700 individual candidates competed in 75majoritarian races to fill the legislature's 131 seats. According to officialresults, turnout was almost 56 percent. 
The big winner in the election was the Unity bloc, an alliance of theRepublican Party, headed by Defense Minister Vazgen Sarkissian, and thePeople's Party of Karen Demirchian, Armenia's last Communist leader. Demirchianand Sarkissian are Armenia's most popular and most powerful politicians,and Unity did even better than expected, gaining an effective majorityin parliament. The Communist Party came in second, followed by the socialistArmenian Revolutionary Federation. Next, in order, were a party backedby the defense minister of Nagorno-Karabakh, a party reportedly supportedby Armenia's Minister of National Security and Internal Affairs, and theNational Democratic Union, whose leader lost a highly controversial electionin 1996 to then-President Levon Ter-Petrossyan. No other parties passedthe five-percent barrier. 
OSCE observation missions had criticized Armenia's parliamentary andpresidential elections in 1995, 1996 and 1998, so Yerevan had to hold betterelections to restore its damaged reputation. The May 30 election was alsosupposed to formalize the shift of power in early 1998, when the governingparty�the Armenian National Movement (ANM)�collapsed as its leader, LevonTer-Petrossyan, was forced out and Vazgen Sarkissian came openly to thefore. 
The ANM and other parties associated with Ter-Petrossyan have now beenswept away, having won almost no parliamentary representation. As for Armenia'simage, Yerevan's hopes for a better assessment from the international communitywere partially realized. The May 31 joint statement by OSCE/ODIHR and theOSCE Parliamentary Assembly noted improvements since previous elections,such as the authorities' respect for freedom of speech and assembly, parties'and candidates' ability to enter the race and campaign freely, the neutralityof media coverage and provision for domestic election observers. But seriousreservations remained, especially the poor state of voter lists, whichkept many people from casting ballots, continuing problems with militaryvoting and insufficiently representative election commissions. OSCE/ODIHR'sfinal report (August 2) restated these concerns. 
Though Armenia's May 30 election was a clear improvement over previouselections, concerns persist about overall political trends. Armenia isunique among former Soviet republics in that its president, despite broadconstitutional prerogatives, is not the most powerful political actor.Vazgen Sarkissian, as Defense Minister, had already gained a remarkablehold on the military, the executive branch and even the legislature, whilealso heading a veterans' organization that controls most local authorities.Such concentration of authority in the hands of one politician bodes illfor separation of powers and the development of civil society. Even moretroubling, Sarkissian's record does not inspire confidence in his commitmentto democracy. He now has to overcome his reputation and manage his owntransition to a democratic statesman. 
After the election, Sarkissian became Prime Minister, tightening hisgrip on all branches of Armenia's Government, despite formally ceding controlof the Ministry of Defense. On the other hand, he now bears full responsibilityfor improving Armenia's economy. Karen Demirchian, for his part, is Speakerof Parliament. He, Sarkissian and President Robert Kocharian form a troikathat at present, appears to be cooperating, but the balance of power amongthem is unstable. Rumors persist about tensions between Sarkissian andthe institutionally weak Kocharian, which could yet lead to a confrontation.Parliament Speaker Demirchian, for his part, has signaled his intentionto strengthen the legislative branch at the expense of the executive, whichcould also upset the delicate equilibrium among the country's leading politicalactors. 
The composition of Armenia's new parliament reflects the influenceof power structures and the interests of newly wealthy businessmen. Mostother significant political parties, though highly suspicious about problemswith voter lists on election day, won sufficient representation to acceptthe outcome and remain engaged in the political system, even if they considerthe game skewed against them. The overall tenor of government-oppositionrelations has greatly improved since Levon Ter-Petrossyan's departure,with only the more radical wing of the ANM refusing to accept the legitimacyof the president and parliament. 
The election and the victory of the Unity bloc presage no major shiftsin Yerevan's foreign policy or specifically, its approach to the Nagorno-Karabakhconflict. Vazgen Sarkissian had been instrumental in ousting the relativelymoderate Levon Ter-Petrossyan so there is no reason to expect major concessionsfrom him or from President Kocharian, who had previously been presidentof Nagorno-Karabakh. In an attempt to revive the long-deadlocked OSCE talks,negotiators are seeking compromise language between proposals put forwardin 1997 and the "common state" approach of 1998. Perhaps morepromising are the stepped-up bilateral contacts between Kocharian and AzerbaijaniPresident Heydar Aliev, who met in Washington in April and again in Genevaon July 16. They expressed satisfaction with their discussions and planto continue meeting, though they announced no breakthroughs. It would seemthat the 76-year old Aliev's health problems in 1999 have spurred the intensifiednegotiations, as the search for peace has now become entangled in Azerbaijan'ssuccession politics: resolving the dispute would bolster Aliev's reputationand enhance his son's prospects to succeed him, but accepting terms thatAzerbaijanis would consider a defeat would tarnish Aliev's legacy, doomhis son's chances and could even lead to instability in Azerbaijan. ThoughKocharian and Sarkissian have recently voiced confidence about a near-termresolution, finding a compromise that allows all parties to claim victorywill be difficult. 
Following the lead of the OSCE, the U.S. State Department noted theimprovements over past elections but emphasized the need for further progressto bring Armenia's elections up to OSCE standards and raise public trustin the process. With the OSCE's assessment having at least been betterthan in past elections, Yerevan can hope for the first official visit toWashington of President Kocharian this fall.