From Ombudspersons to Mayors: The Struggle for Impartiality and Public Trust in Armenia

29.01.2025

 

By Tigran Grigoryan

 

The recent confrontation between Armenia’s Human Rights Defender, Anahit Manasyan, and opposition MP Garnik Danielyan has ignited debate over freedom of speech and the independence of the ombudsperson institution. The controversy began with a Facebook post by Danielyan, in which he criticized Armenia’s penitentiary system and accused the ombudsperson’s office of inaction. Manasyan responded with a stern warning, suggesting that Danielyan’s actions could be a criminal offense under Armenia’s Criminal Code.

 

Human rights advocate Zaruhi Hovhannisyan called the ombudsperson’s response “extremely dangerous and unacceptable.” She argued that invoking the Criminal Code against public criticism undermines freedom of speech and creates a climate of fear. “This restricts freedom of expression and discourages raising legitimate concerns,” Hovhannisyan said.

 

Hovhannisyan, a member of a public monitoring group overseeing penitentiaries, also highlighted that many of Danielyan’s concerns were valid and unresolved. “The ombudsperson could have addressed these issues without referencing the Criminal Code. Danielyan’s post was not offensive,” she added.

 

Hovhannisyan criticized the ombudsperson’s statement for lacking neutrality, likening it to a political actor defending specific interests rather than a neutral institution protecting citizens’ rights. “It casts doubt on the ombudsperson’s impartiality and its role in safeguarding human rights,” she said.

 

This incident raises concerns about the impartiality of the Human Rights Defender’s institution. Manasyan, a former member of Prime Minister Pashinyan’s cabinet, has not stood out for harshly criticizing the ruling party, even during instances of blatant violations.

 

In this case, the potential use of criminal liability in response to criticism threatens public trust in independent institutions and stifles open dialogue. As Armenia continues its democratic journey, it is vital for public institutions to uphold constructive dialogue and mutual respect. The ombudsperson’s role must remain impartial, focused on safeguarding citizens’ rights rather than engaging in political disputes.

 

Garik Sargsyan’s Self-Rewarding Behavior and the Erosion of Public Trust

 

In another episode of controversy, troubling reports have emerged surrounding Garik Sargsyan, the mayor of Vedi and a member of the ruling “Civil Contract” party. During a Vedi municipal council meeting, Sargsyan awarded himself a bonus equivalent to one month’s salary for the “proper performance of his duties.” Displaying political unity, Sargsyan and other ruling party members voted to approve the bonus scheme, which totaled 1.2 million dram. This included two months’ worth of salaries for Sargsyan and similar bonuses for his colleagues.

 

Hakob Turikyan, a representative of the opposition faction “My Strong Community,” condemned the practice, labeling it a recurring tradition in which Sargsyan rewards himself with a double salary at the end of the year. Critics argue that such actions abuse political power for personal enrichment, particularly at a time when many citizens feel alienated from their local government.

 

Sargsyan’s track record as the former governor of Ararat raises further concerns. In his previous role, he awarded himself bonuses that exceeded legal limits, including a 104.5% bonus for himself and his subordinates, despite a legally mandated 100% cap. These actions have sparked public outrage, underscoring broader issues of political elites exploiting their positions for personal gain.

 

Such behavior erodes public trust in Armenia’s institutions. When officials prioritize personal rewards over addressing citizens’ needs, they deepen public cynicism. The absence of transparency and accountability exacerbates the divide between the ruling elite and ordinary Armenians.

 

In defense of Sargsyan, ruling party members like Aramais Grigoryan argued that officials should value their work and be rewarded accordingly. However, this defense highlights the disconnect between the ruling party and the public. For many Armenians, the issue is not whether officials value their contributions but whether such rewards are justifiable in a context where citizens feel their concerns are consistently ignored.

 

Democracy Watch is a joint initiative of CivilNet and the Regional Center for Democracy and Security.

 

This material has been funded by UK International Development from the UK government; however, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.