Ditord also on LiveJournal

Having monitored the Armenian blogosphere for almost 1 year now I can state with full confidence, that the most vivid Armenian blogging community is based on the LiveJournal blogging platform. As the Armenian blog review with its two versions: English and Armenian (the latter is temporarily halted) is intended primarily as a service to the Armenian blogosphere, I find it most appropriate to establish a mirrored LiveJournal version of the Armenian blog review/Armenian Observer blog which will from now on be available at http://ditord.livejournal.com - closer to where the most bloggers are. However, as I like the Wordpress interface so much better, I will continue to work primarily at the Wordpress version of the Armenian Observer.

Democracy Dialogue on Criticism of Nongovernmental Organizations

USINFO Webchat transcript, July 26

Thomas Carothers (Photo courtesy Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)

Thomas Carothers, the vice president for studies, international politics and governance at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, participated in a July 26 USINFO Democracy Dialogue on the backlash against nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

Following is the transcript of the Webchat:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION PROGRAMS
USINFO Webchat Transcript

Democracy Dialogues: The Backlash Against NGOs

Guest: Thomas Carothers

Date: July 26, 2007

Time: 10:00 a.m. EDT (1400 GMT)

Moderator: Welcome to our global participants! We will begin momentarily. You are welcome to send in your questions now. Your questions will not appear on this screen until they are answered by our speaker.

Thomas Carothers: In discussing the backlash against NGOs, it is important to distinguish between two different phenomena. First, in recent years some governments (such as those in Russia, Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Egypt, and elsewhere) have taken steps to block or limit the activities of Western NGOs working in their countries, accusing them of being agents of U.S. or Western political subversion. These efforts have been directed both against government funded NGOs, such as the U.S. party institutes and Freedom House, and entirely privately-funded organizations such as the Soros foundations. These pushback efforts have sometimes included attempts to reduce Western financial support for local NGOs through restrictive NGO laws. This backlash was greatly fueled by the color revolutions, which made some government fear that Western NGOs could organize large-scale civic protests.

A second, different kind of backlash against NGOs is criticism of and pressure against local NGOs by their governments, focused on the charge that such organizations are not responsible actors, are too anti-government, and are not properly accountable to citizens. These sorts of criticisms and pressures are exercised against all sorts of NGOs, not just those working on democracy issues but on other issues such as environmental advocacy. This latter kind of backlash sometimes has an anti-Western edge with local NGOs being accused of being under the control of Western funders, but it grows out of a more general reaction to the rise of NGOs during the 1990s and governments’ discomfort with sharing power with civil society.

Both types of backlash are significant, and both can be harmful to democracy, but they are somewhat distinct.

Question [Sudha Mohan]: Do you believe that NGOs truly threaten Democracy? If yes, Please provide relevant examples of this.

Answer [Thomas Carothers]: The normal types of NGOs—advocacy organizations, service delivery groups, cultural organizations and others—generally contribute to democracy, not threaten it. They do so by pushing for greater accountability and increasing citizen participation. Governments that feel threatened by NGOs are usually non-democratic governments.

Q [Badrus Sholeh]: In Indonesia, some state officers criticize the importance of accountability of NGOs. Are there any guarantees that reports(s) to NGOs funding are parts of the accountability? Can government interfere the structure and activities of NGOs?

A: Accountability can be a significant issue. NGOs should on the one hand be accountable to their funders, whether external or internal, and at the same time they should in some broader sense be accountable to the public through transparency and reasonable legal regulations.

Q [kelvin glen]: I have to agree, often the governments resist NGO's as they see them as a threat and replacing the government services. This should not be the case NGO's are here to support government ion it actions and service delivery. Kelvin Glen - South Africa.

A: It is normal in established democracies for governments to regulate NGOs at least in terms of basic requirements for legal registration, accounting methods, and other basic operational features. Such regulations however normally leave considerable space and flexibility for NGOs to choose their own work programs, strategies, and goals.

Moderator: Welcome to those of you just joining us. We see your questions coming in. Questions will appear on this screen only after they are answered by our speaker.

Q [Chat Participant]: What advice do you have for an NGO threatened with indirect measures such as "tax violations" or other excuses governments use to shut down NGOs? Is there any international body NGOs can rely on for help in such cases?

A: Unfortunately there is not an international legal body with clear responsibility for this area. In some cases local NGOs threatened by governments can try to appeal to regional organizations, like the OSCE or OAS, that have articulated standards for democracy, arguing that the actions against NGOs violate those standards. Or they can try to mobilize a reaction by appealing through the media or through international NGOs with a common interest in their work. The International Center for Non-Profit Law does useful work in articulating standards for NGO treatment.

Moderator: Participants may be interested in our upcoming webchat with Stephan Klingelhofer, vice president of the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law. Mr. Klingelhofer joins us to discuss “NGOs and Policy Advocacy” on August 15.

More information can be found at: http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/USINFO/Products/Webchats/klingelhofer_15_aug_2007.html.

Q [Marek]: Dear sir, Often there may be a perception of NGOs as an import, or foreign entity working in a particular country. In your experience, is this true or are NGOs more typically made up of local residents and activists?

Could the backlash against NGO groups be avoided if fewer foreigners staffed NGOs at the working level and projected a more familiar "face"?

A: It's hard to generalize -- some international NGOs do rely heavily on expatriate staff, especially for office director positions. Others have moved more in the direction of all local staff in their country offices. The trend is toward greater localism, which is helpful to deflect charges of being a "foreign interloper" in another country. Even with local staff however, a suspicious government that doesn't like foreign NGOs, will find reasons to pushback.

Q [Akhmed Tillayev - Tashkent,Uzbekistan]: Mr. Thomas, thanks for your time.

First of all, I want to clarify an important thing in the background of the topic. I think is sentence like “in some countries around the world governments are starting to view NGOs as a threat to their power”, you mean INTERNATIONAL NGOs, (basically provided by the U.S.) not local ones. As far as I know, some countries at least Central Asian do support their local NGOs’ activities.

There is a real backlash against INTERNATIONAL NGOs (not local ones) in former Soviet Union countries. The main reason for it I think that these governments consider international NGOs (basically provided by the U.S.) as supporters and providers of anti-governmental rebels which were aimed against constitutional regimes of their states. It was broadcasted almost in all Euro-Asian countries’ channels how people, who were taking part in rebels against their government’s constitutional régimes, were supported by international NGOs like [Peace Corps], IREX, Freedom House, Source foundation. Basically all of those activities were in Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, and Kyrgyzstan. In Ukraine, it was broadcasted how those very NGOs were distributing food, warm clothes, sometimes even drinks, for those rebellions, even though they were against their constitutional regime. At first, the number of rebellions was not more than 500 hundred peoples. But after getting free food and free clothes from those NGOs, the number of rebellions increased rapidly. And the REASON for it was NOT their own democratic views or disappointments have changed, they just wanted to get some food and clothes, plus the majority among them was confirmed drunkards and hobos. Of course it will work out that way, because some of them are undeveloped countries, where the people are making less that $1 per day. Therefore I think in some cases they are just buying people, and then broadcasting in their local channels how they are helping the people, or trying to help to establish democratic state.

What is your own opinion about it? Does it really happen? Or is it just informational attack?

Many thanks in advance, Akhmed Tillayev, 19.

A: First of all it is important to note that these civic protests are not best characterized as rebellions -- they were citizens protesting stolen elections, which is something different. These protests were support and sometimes organized by local NGOs committed to working for free and fair elections. And some of those local NGOs did receive financial support for their work from the U.S. and Europe. But the outside organizations were not supporting the demonstrations in such a direct way as was reported in the government media of these countries.

Q [marcelo viruez]: Buenos días, puedo efectuar mis preguntas en español?

Q [Chat Participant]: What is the current status of NGO community in Russia? As I understand, there is a country wide crackdown and also new legislation that seeks to make life very difficult for Russian and non-Russian NGOs to work in Russia?

A: Russia does have many NGOs, hundreds and in fact thousands, if one counts very small organizations. They are working on a wide range of issues, from health and education to human rights and the environment. Some (a minority, usually the larger ones) are supported by Western foundations and aid programs. Many are supported by Russian business funds, government funds, or individual contributions. The Putin administration has placed greater restrictions on NGOs, creating a fairly tough legal regime in which NGOs have extensive registration and reporting requirements. This has made life harder for Russian NGOs but not eliminated them. Some NGOs, such as human rights groups or groups working on Chechnya, have faced persecution and harassment.

Moderator: Marcelo, si es posible preferimos que nos haga sus preguntas en inglés, pero si no es posible las traduciremos.

Today’s webchat is the second of several Democracy Dialogues webchats devoted to the topic of Nongovernmental Organizations.

Our next webchat in this series takes place Tuesday, August 7 at 1400 GMT. Join Outi Flynn of BoardSource for a discussion on Principles of Effective NGO Governance.

Learn more about Democracy Dialogues at: http://www.democracy.gov/.

Q [AshDailyStar]: NGOs have been known to play significant political roles -- both directly and indirectly -- in different countries. Do you feel that NGOs should be apolitical, if so, why? If they should be apolitical, how do you view the role of NGOs in politics, especially in non-democratic regimes?

A: I do not believe that NGOs, as a general category, should necessarily be apolitical. In established democracies, NGOs are deeply involved in many political issues and operate in a political and sometimes partisan manner, from lobbying for bills to supporting particular candidates who favor policy positions they agree with. If an NGO is working on certain issues, such as anti-corruption or parliamentary transparency, their work will be more effective if it is non-partisan. But it would be too limiting to say that as a rule NGOs should be non-political or non-partisan.

Marcelo, Hablo espanol -- puede darnos su pregunta en espanol si quiere. Thomas Carothers

Moderator: Regarding the earlier questions about governments' use of "tax violations" and other excuses to restrict or shut down NGOs, participants may be interested in reading Toward an Enabling Legal Environment for Civil Society.

Welcome to those of you just joining us! We are still open to your questions.

"Marcelo", "Ash", thank you, we have your questions. Mr. Carothers is reviewing them now.

Q [AshDailyStar]: The Bangladesh caretaker government recently announced that all NGOs, including human rights organizations, will have to participate in 'visible development projects' such as lending micro-credit or building roads, etc. What are your thoughts on the decision? What does this indicate about the future of the NGO movement here and elsewhere?

A: This sounds like a dangerous idea to me. I don't think NGOs should be forced to conform to a certain category of activities. NGOs have been so active in development work in South Asia that some people associate them mainly with that and therefore think development work is their "normal" job, but that's a mistaken conception. It sounds like a clever tactic by the government to reduce political space.

Q [marcelo viruez]: Cúal cree usted que es el papel de los ONG´s en America Latina en general y en Bolivia en Particular, al apoyo económico y en capacitación de movimientos indigenas para establecer autonomías indigenas con implicaciones de autogobierno o de dominio sobre su tierra y territorio?

A: Creo que en general los ONGs en America Latina han cumplido muchas tareas y funciones utiles en los ultimos decades de derechos humanos hasta educacion para ninos. Se que el rol de los ONGs en paises con poblaciones importantes indigenas ha sido contravertido pero es importante incluir estas poblaciones en las sociedad y la politica y los ONGs han ayudado con esta.

Marcelo, Puede leer repuestas en ingles (Marcelo, can you read answers in English?)

Q [marcelo viruez]: He desarrollado trabajos en una ONG en bolivia para el reconocimento de derechos humanos en la Nueva Constitución Política del Estado que actualmente se viene "redactando o elaborando en la Asamblea Constituyente de nuestro país, lastimosamente la inestabilidad de ese magno evento resulta en que la opinión pública esta desarrollando cierto temor en relación a cambios muy profundos en nuestro sistema jurídico, lo cual podría derivar en un rechazo de las conclusiones de esta asamblea, cual cree usted que sería el comportamiento de las ONG´s frente a este eventual escenario de fracaso de la Asamblea Constituyente en Bolivia? o ¿Cúal cree usted que sería en rol de las ONG´s que trabajan en el campo del cambio del sistema jurídico (leyes, políticas públicas, etc) en los paises latinoamericanos en general y de Bolivia en Particular?

A: En la situación compleja de la Asamblea Constituyente de Bolivia será crucial que las ONG’s que trabajan con respecto al estado de derecho, permanezcan fieles a sus principios y que reaccionen con calma, pero energéticamente si hay algún intento para limitar los derechos a través de la Asamblea o interrumpir la Asamblea a través de otros medios. El país está en momentos tensos y las ONG tienen que mostrar que están trabajando por principios más trascendentes y no solamente por la ventaja de un solo grupo.

[In the complex situation in Bolivia with the Constituent Assembly it will be crucial that NGOs working on rule of law and rights stay true to their principles and react calmly but forcefully to any attempt either to limit rights through the Assembly, or to disrupt the Assembly through other means. The country is at a tense point and NGOs have to show that they are working for larger principles and not just the advantage of one group or the other.]

Moderator: We have just a few minutes left for your final questions.

Mr. Carothers is the author of two recent publications of possible interest to our participants:

• The Democracy Crusade Myth," appeared in The National Interest, July/August 2007.

• "The Debate on Sequencing," appeared in Journal of Democracy," July 2007.

Q [marcelo viruez]: Si, puedo leer las respuestas en Inglés, pero mi redacción es un poco incipiente, y ya que este es un evento de significación global es que prefiero no cometer errores de sintaxis u ortografía por lo que efectue mis preguntas en español. Muchas gracias por su preocupación y por la claridad de sus respuestas. Marcelo Viruez, La Paz-Bolivia

A: De nada. La comunidad de las NGO del mundo está vigilando la situación en Bolivia, así que estos asuntos de principios son muy importantes ahí. Mucha suerte en su trabajo.

[You're welcome. The situation in Bolivia is being watched by many people in the NGO community around the world and so these issues of principle and partisanship are extremely important there. Good luck with your work.]

I thank everyone for the excellent questions. It is good to have searching discussions about the role of NGOs and normal for governments and others to ask hard questions about what they do and what their role should be. It is worrisome however to see NGOs being used as political scapegoats or for the whole concept of NGOs to be mythicized and presented to citizens as something sinister and dangerous.

Q [marcelo viruez]: Muchas gracias por haberme dado la oportunidad de participar en este exitoso espacio de dialogo y felicito a sus patrocinadores por esta iniciativa, que permite a ciudadanos del mundo entero poder comunicarnos con expertos de talla mundial para reflexionar y dialogar democraticamente sobre tópicos de interes mundial, latinoamericano y local, atentamente Marcelo Viruez, Especialista en Derechos Humanos y Docente Universitario La Paz, Bolivia.

Moderator: We wish to thank Thomas Carothers for joining us today. The webchat is now closed. Please visit our USINFO Webchat Station homepage for more information on upcoming events and a transcript of today’s discussion (posted within one business day).

(Guests are chosen for their expertise. The views expressed by guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of State.)

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Gorbachev on the United States' Attempts to Build Global Empire - World Disorder

Quote of the Day:

"The Americans then gave birth to the idea of a new empire, world leadership by a single power, and what followed?.... What has followed are unilateral actions, what has followed are wars, what has followed is ignoring the U.N. Security Council, ignoring international law and ignoring the will of the people, even the American people."

- Mikhael Gorbachev, In

Russia's Gorbachev Says US is Sowing World Disorder
Published on Friday, July 27, 2007 by Reuters
by Guy Faulconbridge
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/27/2812/

Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev criticized the United States, and current President George W. Bush in particular, on Friday for sowing disorder across the world by seeking to build an empire.

Gorbachev, who presided over the break-up of the Soviet Union, said Washington had sought to build an empire after the Cold War ended but had failed to understand the changing world.0727 04

"The Americans then gave birth to the idea of a new empire, world leadership by a single power, and what followed?" Gorbachev asked reporters at a news conference in Moscow.

"What has followed are unilateral actions, what has followed are wars, what has followed is ignoring the U.N. Security Council, ignoring international law and ignoring the will of the people, even the American people."

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Bush say they are friends but ties have been strained by U.S. plans for a missile defense shield in Europe, disagreements over Kosovo and the war in Iraq, and competition for allies in the former Soviet Union.

Many Russians view the United States as a rival and enemy.

Gorbachev, 76, who left politics after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, is deeply unpopular in Russia. Though feted abroad, he is blamed in Russia for sinking the Soviet empire and plunging millions into poverty.

"When I look at today's world I have a worrying feeling about the growth of world disorder," he said.

"I don't think the current president of the United States and his administration will be able to change the situation as it is developing now — it is very dangerous," he said.

Gorbachev said Russia's hopes of building stronger ties with Washington had waned in the face of a series of U.S. administrations interested in building an empire.

"It is a massive strategic mistake: no single centre can command the entire world, no one," he said. "Current America has made so many mistakes."

He said the U.S. administration was apparently unable to adapt to a swiftly changing world and had ignored — or was unable to see — the rise of Brazil, Russia, India and China as economic heavyweights.

Treaties limiting the number of nuclear weapons should be observed, he said, adding that officials in Washington should be wary of sparking a new arms race.

Gorbachev, who became Soviet leader in 1985, battled against the conservative wing of the Communist Party to push through reforms that dismantled the one-party system, freed the press and ended restrictions on religion.

The father of "glasnost" (openness) said he supported Putin's policies but that the pro-Kremlin United Russia party had eroded democratic rights.

He said Putin's "seriousness" as a leader would be assured if he left office according to the constitution. Putin says he will leave office in 2008 after two terms in office.

Copyright (c) 2007 Reuters Limited.

Patricia Cohen: Does capitalism lead to democracy, and how?

This essay and yesterday's discussions with a fellow blogger Onnik Krikoryan turned my mind back to wondering on the meaning and significance of democracy again. Hence I'm back on this blog again, and although I can't promise that it will be updated regularly, I will try to make sure to have more interesting discussions about democracy initiated here. For now - take a look at this essay, I am not publishing the full text, but whatever is included is quite interesting:

[International Herald Tribune | By Patricia Cohen |Wednesday, June 13, 2007] NEW YORK: When President George W. Bush declared last week that political liberty is the natural byproduct of economic openness, his counterparts in Beijing and Moscow were not the only ones to object. Even once ardent supporters have backed away from the century-old theory that democracy and capitalism, like Paris Hilton and paparazzi, need each other to survive.

In China, where astounding economic growth persists despite Communist Party rule, in Russia where President Vladimir Putin has squelched opponents, and in Venezuela where dissent is silenced, developments around the world have been tearing sizable holes in what has been a remarkably powerful idea, not only in intellectual circles, but also in Republican and Democratic administrations - that capitalism and
democracy are two sides of the same coin, trends that reinforce each other.

"People, including myself, still have reasons to think it will eventually happen," Francis Fukuyama, a political economist at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, said of China's evolution to democracy. "But the time frame has to be a lot longer." At least in the next couple of decades, he said, it's likely that "the authoritarian system will keep going and get stronger."

After communism collapsed, Fukuyama, perhaps more than anyone else, was associated with the idea that capitalism and democracy are inextricably linked. In his famous essay, "The End of History," he declared that all nations would ultimately evolve into Western-style liberal democracies.

Yet in the more than 15 years since Fukuyama gave his prognosis, support for the underlying theory tottered back and forth. After the fall of communism in 1989, democratic capitalism seemed poised for a victory lap. "There was great hope in the early 1990s," said Michael Mandelbaum, the author of the forthcoming book "Democracy's Good Name: The Rise and Risks of the World's Most Popular Form of Government."

The belief was that rising incomes create a middle class who would then agitate for personal liberty and political power. The tipping point seemed to occur when per capita income reached somewhere between $6,000 and $8,000. True, there were exceptions like tiny Singapore and Malaysia with their rising stocks and authoritarian governments, but they were often dismissed as too small or transitional to really put a dent in the theory.

Yet as free market shock therapy closed down companies and government services and autocrats gained power in the Caucasus, Central Asia and Russia, the initial optimism about democracy's sure-footed march faltered.

Some scholars pointed out that the American experience, where democracy and capitalism arose at the same time, wasn't so much a model for the rest of the world, but an anomaly. "Capitalism came before democracy essentially everywhere except in this country where they started at the same time," said Bruce Scott, an economist at Harvard Business School who is finishing up a book titled "Capitalism, Democracy and Development." "In the rest of the world, it took 100, 200, 300 years before they got to where they could manage a democracy."

A big mistake, Scott said, was assuming that "all you had to have was a constitution and an election and you had a democracy; that was really stupid."

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate now at Columbia University, agrees that one of the biggest changes since the early 1990s is how fuzzy the meaning of democracy is and how easy it is to manipulate elections.

As more fledgling democracies failed, various theories like "illiberal democracy" appeared to explain why. Some countries - Singapore, Peru and Russia, for example - go through a stage of robust economic growth but limited political liberties. Lee Kuan Yew, the former prime minister of Singapore, argued that cultural differences, what he labeled "Asian values," led to a different path of democratic
development.

Then, just after the Iraq war, "there was a mini-burst of optimism" that capitalism was leading to democracy after all, Mandelbaum said, with three popular uprisings in the Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan and elections in Gaza, Lebanon and Egypt in 2005. The optimism quickly fizzled.

Now some scholars argue that a free market can actually undermine democracy. "Capitalism doesn't necessarily lead towards democracy at all," Scott said. "The one thing that you can say is that capitalism is going to relentlessly produce inequality of income, and eventually that is going to become incompatible with democracy."

More worrisome is that the widespread assumption that capitalism and democracy are closely linked can backfire, argues Lord Ralf Dahrendorf, a research professor at the Social Science Centre Berlin.

In a recent discussion on democracy and capitalism sponsored by the Hansard Society, a nonpartisan charity in London that promotes parliamentary democracy, he argues that when democracy fails to deliver the economic goods, people begin to doubt its value. "Few things seem more difficult and yet few things are more important for sustainable liberty than to separate capitalism and democracy in
people's minds," he writes.

Still, many economists and political scientists would argue that free markets and free people tend to complement each other, like gin and tonic. Capitalism can create a hospitable atmosphere for democracy and help it withstand turmoil, even it does not assure its existence. As Stiglitz said, "The movement from closed to open society is a very big change."

To compete economically, a nation has to be plugged into the global information network, which exposes their citizens to other political systems and cultures. And as Mandelbaum, argues, the "habits and values of market economy when transferred to political sphere make for a democracy."

"I'm rather confident over Russia's prospects over the next 20 or 30 years," he said. "I can imagine Russia growing into democracy peacefully because it has democratic institutions."

But China, he acknowledges is "the big enchilada, the big test." Even with a growing middle class, there are still a billion poor people. There will be increasing pressure for democracy, he said, but China's leaders may be able push back.

He added that he wouldn't be surprised though if China and even Russia come up with a version of the discredited "Asian values" idea, a "new type of authoritarian ideology that tries to justify" their systems.[...]

Joine me there...

Hi All,

As you can see, I haven't posted here for a while. The reason is - I have permanently moved my activities to http://ditord.wordpress.com and http://munetik.wordpress.com.

Please join me there! :)

Government Control of Media in Armenia and Outlook for Upcoming Parliamentary Elections Slated for May 12, 2007

Extracts from the essey written in February 2007

99% of the Armenian people voted for independence of the country from the Soviet Union on September 21, 1991 in the popular referendum. The Constitution of the Republic was adopted on a popular referendum on July 5, 1995. Amendments to the Constitution were adopted on November 27, 2005. The fundamental document of the Republic of Armenia establishes the country as “a sovereign, democratic, social, rule of law state” (RA Constitution, 2005).

Armenia of today is a striving democratic Caucasian/East-European country, which has joined the Council of Europe on 25 January 2001 and, since its accession, has been subject to a Parliamentary Assembly monitoring procedure. The country is experiencing progress on the way of democratization in many respects, as was noted by the Resolution 1532 (2007) by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in regards to Honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia, (4) With regard to Armenia's obligations and commitments in the field of pluralist democracy:

4.1. The Assembly welcomes the constitutional amendments which have improved the separation of, and balance between, the legislative, executive and judicial powers. The revised Constitution is now consistent with European standards and principles of democracy and the rule of law and offers a new foundation for developing the democratic functioning of Armenia's institutions.

However, there are certain key areas in the democratization processes of Armenia, where the incumbent authorities of Armenia, the President and the ruling Republican Party who have been in power since 1998 are actually pursuing such policies, which are introducing limitations and setbacks to the democracy for the country, rather than progress. In the same PACE Resolution 1532 there is a formulation, which states the disappointment of the PACE by the fact, that since Armenia's accession to the Council of Europe in 2001, not a single election held in the country has been deemed fully free and fair. On his January 23, 2007 speech, Anthony Godfrey, U.S. Charge d'Affaires in Armenia stated that “his government would revise the decision to allocate a hefty $236 million in extra aid to Armenia if its authorities fail to hold free and just parliamentary elections, slated for May"(ArmenPress, 2007).

The upcoming May 12, 2007 elections in the country are seen both inside Armenia and by the International Community as the point of no return, after which the country will head back to the authoritarian state, after the Russian model, or will do yet another step forward on the path of democratic development and thus set a course which will determine the progress of the country for the next 5-10 years. The upcoming elections in Armenia present three main challenges to the government and the society as a whole:

1. How to insure the Political will of authorities to enforce truly fair and free elections;
2. How to implement fair and free elections from the organizational point of view;
3. How to provide the voter with the opportunity of making an informed and conscious choice when casting the ballot.

The first two issues are beyond the limited scope of this essay; hence we will be mostly focusing on the third point and will try to reveal some of the problem areas.

On January 23 PACE Resolution we read the following statement reflecting the essence of democratic problems in Armenia: “The Assembly expects Armenia to demonstrate its capacity to hold the parliamentary elections in 2007 and the presidential elections in 2008 in accordance with international standards, not least with regard to pluralist, impartial media coverage of the election campaign,”(PACE Resolution 1532, 2007) Further on clause 6.2 of the Resolution notes that “a few months away from forthcoming parliamentary elections, the Assembly attaches special importance to pluralism of the electronic media”, since “equitable access by all political parties” to them is “an absolute prerequisite for the holding of free and fair elections” (PACE Resolution 1532, 2007).

A number of widely recognized organizations have recently posted reports on the state of freedom and democracy in Armenia, in which the country repeatedly ranks among partly free, oppressive towards journalists, etc. (See recent reports by the: Freedom House; Reporters without Borders; Global Integrity).The following conclusion of the Freedom House is especially worth mentioning: “Systematic efforts to control media in countries of the former Soviet Union have intensified in 2006 indicating further erosion of civil liberties.” (Freedom House, 2006)

It is important to recognize at this point, that the Media in all modern societies has the power to make and break governments. The power of media in politics is very clearly stated in the “People in Society: Modern Studies for S1 and S2” book by Sinclair and Grant, where the authors elaborate on the power media has over the election processes in the UK. Speaking of 1992 election in UK the book looks at the case, when The Sun carried the headline 'It was the Sun wot won it' after the conservative victory, and contrasts it with the elections five yours later, after the Sun had switched it carried the headline 'It's my son wot won it', and draws conclusions from these strong manifestations of media role in the electoral and political processes in a strong democracy like the UK.

The media helps people to make decisions, so obviously the way in which news is reported is very important, especially during election time. Some people say that Labour won the election because of The Sun's support for the party! (Page 89, Sinclair, Grant, 2003)

However, the authors also warn, that the statements above should be viewed with a certain degree of reservation: “Others, though, would say that The Sun switched to support Labour because it was clear that Labour was going to win.” (Page 89, Sinclair, Grant, 2003)

While the media impact on the elections can be limited in the UK context, where strong party traditions and general understanding among the public of democratic processes and the importance of having a strong government and opposition serve as a limiting factor to the power of media, in Armenia the impact of media is enormous in comparison. This has much to do with the fact, that as any other post-Soviet country, the Armenian society is still very much a propaganda-led society. Media was the main force legitimizing power, and still is in many of the soviet/post-soviet societies. The enormous degree of media control over the post-soviet societies is especially well analyzed by former editor of the Russian Forbes Paul Klebnikov, in his book “Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky and the Looting of Russia”. Klebnikov has summarized the overall influence of media on the Russian electorate during the reelection campaign of Russian’s first president B. Yeltsin, with the following quotation from Alex Levinson of the Russian centre of Public Opinion Studies: “Their brains were turned into a mash”, which resulted in an overwhelming victory of B. Yelstsin over the opposition candidate G. Zyuganov in the 1996 presidential elections in Russia.

The notion of comparing the Armenian media with that of UK or even Russia can seem rather artificial, as the Armenian media has neither the resources, nor the power and scale in any way comparable to that of the UK or Russian media. However, the influence of the Armenian media on the voting process is vast. In fact all the political forces coming to power since the declaration of Armenias independence in 1991, have only been able to retain power by controlling and ensuring the support of the media. The first president of the Republic of Armenia, Levon Ter-Petrosyan was elected president with the uniform support of all Armenian media in 1991, when he was already in position of power as the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Armenia, and then fully state owned media presented him as the only viable candidate for president to the country. Levon Ter-Petrosyan was re-elected on September 22, 1996. His re-election was marred by allegations of electoral fraud reported by the opposition and supported by some international observers. Interestingly, before heading into the reelection in a televised address on December 28, 1994, Levon Ter-Petrosyan “banned the nation's leading opposition party, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), jailed its leadership, and shut down Yerkir, the country's largest daily newspaper.” (http://www.arf.am/English/history/004history.htm)

The lesson was learned by the successor of Levon Ter-Petrosyan, then-Prime Minister Robert Kocharian, who won a comfortable victory on March 30, 1998, defeating his main rival, Karen Demirchyan in early presidential marred by irregularities and violations as reported by the reported by international electoral observers. The media campaign around Kocharian’s campaign came to prove once again, that in Armenia the man who controls the media (Kocharian was the acting-president after Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s resignation), controls the results of the elections. The culmination of media control and the start of the current atmosphere of media conformity was the deprivation of broadcast license from A1plus in 2002. In April 2002, less than a year before he was due to seek re-election, Kocharian closed Armenia's main independent TV station, A1 Plus, and kept them off the air. This resulted in criticism from the Council of Europe and international media watchdogs, but as of now (2007) A1 Plus is still not allowed to broadcast.

Many would argue today, that the abovementioned historical developments happened, because the country is a young democracy, and the legislation, especially in the sphere of the media was imperfect and gave room for manipulations for those in position of power. Many important legislative initiatives and especially the adoption of Constitutional amendments on November 27, 2005 have been undertaken to improve the media related legislation in the country. In the opinion of the CoE Venice Commision the text of the new Constitution,

“…would constitute a good basis for ensuring the compliance of the Armenian Constitution with the European standards in the fields of respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and would pave the way to further European integration.” (Venice Commission, 2005)

One of the most important aspects of the amended Constitution was the creation of guarantees for the freedom, independence and plurality of the media, with newly suggested mechanism especially regarding the National Commission of Radio and TV(NCRT). The Venice Commission in fact welcomed the changes related to the NCRT, however, there are still aspects of media regulation on the constitutional level, which are problematic as of today:

“The Commission also wishes to refer to the need for the members of the boards of management of public service broadcasting organisations to be appointed so as to avoid the risk of “any political or other interference”.[2] In this respect, the appointment by the President of the Republic of all the members of the Council of the Public TV and Radio has been seen as problematic, and the need for the appointment process, if this power of the President is to be retained, to be open and transparent and not open to political abuse, has been underlined[3]. ” (Venice Commission, 2005)

Among other improvements to the media related legislated it is worth noting the RA Law on Freedom of Information, some positive aspects in the RA Law on Mass Communication like the provision about protection of sources and protection of journalists when performing their civil duties. Meanwhile, despite the mentioned legislative preconditions for media to improve towards becoming a real democracy watchdog and fulfilling its function of the “fourth state”, we have seen the Armenian media failing dramatically so far. The media situation today with the new Constitution and greatly improved media legislation is not much better then it was during the 2003 parliamentary and presidential elections.

This point is further supported by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights released the Needs Assessment Mission Report, released on February 15, 2007, which gives the following overview of the media situation in Armenia related to the upcoming parliamentary elections:

“While equal access to public and private media is guaranteed by law during the official campaign period, including free airtime on public TV and radio, the opposition claims very limited media access in the current period before the official campaign is due to begin. This is reportedly the result of administrative obstacles and self-censorship. Moreover, many NAM interlocutors expressed concerns that media access will remain unequal during the official campaign period”(OSCE, 2007)

In the section of the report on media it is stressed that “television remains the main source of information and can be described as predominantly pro-government, despite the formal transformation of state TV into a public service broadcaster, and the existence of numerous private channels, many of which are de facto linked to political parties”. In the opinion of OSCE/ODIHR Mission, “the print media is seen as more pluralistic and news coverage is diverse and critical, however circulations are limited”. The report also describes the situation with “A1+” and “Noyan Tapan” TV companies, who remain without a frequency to this day, “Interlocutors and media experts described this denial of licenses as a clear message to other media outlets, which fear losing their licenses, and effectively creating an atmospheres of self-censorship. This has been compounded by a few cases of violence against journalists over the past years.” (OSCE, 2007)

Bibliography

1. The Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, 2005, http://www.parliament.am/legislation.php?sel=show&ID=1&lang=eng
2. Final Opinion on Constitutional Reform in the Republic of Armenia adopted by the Venice Commission at its 64th Plenary Session (Venice, 21-22 October 2005), http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2005/CDL-AD%282005%29025-e.asp
3. Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia, Resolution 1532 (2007)1 http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta07/ERES1532.htm
4. Armenpress,24/01/2007, U.S. Diplomat Warns That Fair Elections Key To Remaining Eligible For Hefty MCA Aid http://www.armenpress.am/armarch/archiveeng.php?year=2007&month=1&day=24
5. Freedom House report, 2006, http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/01/EDDC2151-48C8-4FD0-939C-0F5517FFAF8A.html
6. People in Society: Modern Studies for S1 and S2 By Stephen P. Sinclair, Helen Grant, Published 2003, Nelson Thornes, ISBN 0748771611
7. Klebnikov, Paul, Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky and the Looting of Russia (New York, Harcourt Brace, 2000); translated into Russian as Pavel Khlebnikov, Krestnyi otets Kremlya Boris Berezovskii ili Istoriya razgrableniya Rossii (Moscow, Detektiv-Press, 2001)
8. Electronic democracy and the UK 2001 elections By Glen Segell, Published 2001 Glen Segell, ISBN 190141423X
9. OSCE/ODIHR NEEDS ASSESSMENT MISSION REPORT, Warsaw, 17 February, 2007

Mumia Abu-Jamal -- When Democracy Equals Empire

From Suryu Every American president, whether Dem...

Every American president, whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, speaks lovingly of 'democracy', whenever the nation engages in some escapade abroad. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, it did so, ostensibly, to 'bring democracy to the Middle East.' When it launches a raid in Grenada, or rains death on a poor neighborhood in Panama, when it invaded Haiti in the last century, ad infinitum, it always did so in the name of 'restoring democracy.'



What is this democracy of which they so blithely speak?

We all have heard the term since our infancy, but who really knows what it means? I wanted to learn more about it, so I began to read one of the finest historians I know of,
the great C.L.R. James, author of the ground-breaking *The Black Jacobins*, an influential study of the Haitian Revolution. Some years ago, James published a pamphlet titled, *Every Cook Can Govern: A Study of Democracy in Ancient Greece* (Jackson, MS: New Mississippi, Inc., Mar. 1986). I found myself (as I often am when I read his stuff) blown away by what I learned. As his subtitle suggests, James looks at Greek history for the roots of the democratic idea, and finds it, in some stages, truly democratic, in ways we can hardly imagine. He writes:

Perhaps the most striking thing about Greek democracy was that the administration (and there were immense administrative problems) was organized upon the basis of what is known as sortition, or, more easily, selection by lot. The vast majority of Greek officials were chosen by a method which amounted to putting names into a hat and appointing the ones whose names came out. Now the average C10 bureaucrat or Labor Member of Parliament in Britain would fall in a fit if it was suggested to him that any worker selected at random could do the work he is doing. But that was precisely
the guiding principle of Greek democracy. And this form of government is the government under which flourished the greatest civilization the world has ever known. [p.1.]

State of the News Media 2007 report

An immensely interesting report has come out: "The State of the News Media 2007", an annual report on the health and status of American journalism published by the Project for Excellence in Journalism research institute. No need to say that its a "must read" for all those interested in journalism in the world and US in particular.

[...]The State of the News Media 2007 is the fourth edition of our annual report on the health and status of American journalism.

Its goal is to gather in one place as much data as possible about all the major sectors of journalism, to identify trends, mark key indicators, note areas for further inquiry and provide a resource for citizens, journalists, and researchers.

For each area we have produced original research and aggregated existing data into a narrative. The statistical data also exists in an interactive area called Charts & Tables where users can customize their own graphics. This year, we also offer a detailed report on the status of online journalism, based on a close quantitative examination of a diverse sample of news websites. “Digital Journalism: A Topography” identifies what qualities of the web are being emphasized and which are not. The study also includes an interactive component that allows users to find the qualities they are looking for and test their favorite sites.[...]

Full report >>>