Raffi Hovhannessian was the only mainstream Armenian opposition politician who at the end of last year decided to throw his hat into the election ring. He conducted a campaign that verged on the surreal – avoiding controversy, shaking hands, talking of serenity and unity.  Some said that fools rush in where angels fear to tread; others accused him of legitimising with his candidature a flawed process; others dismissed him as irrelevant. He could have been any of these three things, or even all of them, but in any case it now does not matter. Whether the 539,691 Armenians who voted for him did so because they liked him or his programme, or because they were voting against the incumbent, we will never quite know. The issue now is not the election (if it ever was) but the political process, and Hovhanessian  has emerged much stronger than any of the other opposition political leaders to play the leading role. After the election results were announced he was smart enough to understand that this was Raffi’s moment and he grabbed it with both hands, leaving both the government and the other opposition leaders confused and disorientated.

In mature democratic countries, and in others that are less experienced but which have embraced democratic practises without hesitation and reservation, elections are the culmination of the political process. The politicians organise and mobilise, they fight it out in an election campaign, which can often be bitter, but in the end everything stops for a day of reflection and the people then have their say, and decide the issue through secret ballot. The politicians bow their heads to the will of the people. Great world statesmen such as Winston Churchill and Jimmy Carter have been thus defeated

In less democratic countries, on the face of it the same pattern is followed but in reality other things happen. Ahead of the elections shady deals are done between political groups and politicians, of which the public is never made aware; key candidates are taken out of the race for this or that reason; the distinction between ruling party and government blurs even more than in the inter-election period.

After that, an election is held. Hundreds of observers descend on the country from all over the world, with long checklists. They tick boxes, fill forms and on that basis draw conclusions. The election becomes far removed from the reality of the political process, but nobody seems to care, or if they do they are too boxed in to do much about it.

The day after the election the political process starts anew. Losers cry foul, regardless of what actually happened on election day, because what they are complaining about is the political process in general. International observers look at their checklists and issue some vague statement that the process was “better” than before, or ”still needs improvement”, or something equally tepid. The opposition is back where they started, on the streets demanding its rights.

Something similar to this has been happening in Armenia over the last months, only now it seems people have had enough. Not for the first time in the South Caucasus – remember Georgia in November 2007 – politicians were lagging way behind the people. They did not lead, they followed. The failure of the main opposition parties in Armenia to give proper leadership to their supporters ahead of the Presidential election became even starker in the last days as people took to the streets to demand justice and fairness. The election is the trigger, the causes are much deeper.

Raffi Hovhannessian was the only mainstream politicians who at the end of last year decided to throw his hat into the election ring. He conducted a campaign that verged on the surreal – avoiding controversy, shaking hands, talking of serenity. Some said that fools rush in where angels fear to tread; others accused him of legitimising with his candidature a flawed process; others dismissed him as irrelevant. He could have been any of these three things, or even all of them, but in any case it now does not matter. Whether the 539,691 Armenians who voted for him did so because they liked him or his programme, or because they were voting against the incumbent, we will never quite know. The issue is now not the election (if it ever was) but the political process and Hovhanessian  has emerged much stronger than any of the other opposition political leaders to play the leading role. After the election results were announced he was smart enough to understand that this was Raffi’s moment and he grabbed it with both hands, leaving both the government and the other opposition leaders confused and disorientated.

Where it will all end is difficult to say. In Georgia it took five years for the demands of the protestors on the streets of Tbilisi in November 2007 to translate themselves into a tangible transfer of power in October 2012, and even now Mikheil Saakashvili still sits in the presidential office in Tbilisi. Those expecting a swift transfer of power in Yerevan may be disappointed. But one thing is certain, the problems in the political system in Armenia have gone too deep now for the reality to be simply ignored. No doubt a few rabbits will be pulled out of the hat to  try to maintain business as usual, but one suspects to no avail. The people are on the march, and the politicians better hurry to catch up.

This commentary was prepared by the editorial team of Caucasus Elections Watch.