20 Years Later: Armenia
By Aghavni Yeghiazaryan Posted Apr 13 2010
Local residents read newspapers at a kiosk February 1998 in downtown Yerevan. Armenian newspapers are sometimes secretly sponsored by well-known politicians and business owners. AP Photo: RUBEN MANGASARYAN
The history of freedom of the press in Armenia developed in parallel with the history of independent Armenia. The first years of independence, when the Soviet authorities had disappeared and a new regime had not yet been formed, were the years of media's real freedom. In any case, this freedom has not become established and well-formed; it has not become an important factor of a new statehood's formation. Rather, it has become a reflection of political interests and local political processes.
“There is as much freedom as is allowed by the authorities,” says Boris Navasardyan, president of Yerevan Press Club. “In Armenia, the press has not become an independent institute, which can be self-regulated and act as per its laws. In Armenia, the press is an institute controlled by the state.”
Because the government completely owned and financed the media in the Soviet era, the phrase “free press” became synonymous with “non-governmental press.” However, even Armenia’s privately owned publications are subject to interference from politicians. When Armenia's new political elite started competing with each other instead of competing with their Soviet opponents, they began to use the press to further their own interests by spreading rumors and misinformation about their competitors. The press met the needs of the elite because news organizations did not have the traditions and financial means to keep their independence stable. Newspapers and TV companies have been turned into political tools because free speech and a free press did not have time to fully develop either in society or media.
In the beginning period of Armenia’s freedom, the public could not make demands for free speech under extreme economic difficulties due to the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Facing the same reality full of great economic problems, newspaper editors could not rely on subscriptions and advertisements for the funding needed to secure their financial independence. To continue their activity, they found sponsors, which were usually un-official donors, who are also prominent politicians or business owners. In return for funding, newspapers will not run critical articles about the sponsor or the sponsor’s businesses, turning the media into the sponsor’s mouthpiece.
Nayasardyan says that although powerful individuals want freedom of speech for themselves, there is no political entity that aspires toward making that freedom universal.
“There are some displays of freedom of the press, but as an established principle, freedom of the press certainly does not exist in our public political life,” he says. “It is sad, but right in those situations when freedom of speech is most needed, it is strongly restricted. This refers both to political events and to important issues, around which open and various discussions are important, which, however, do not take place. And this is reasoned by the control over the channels of information.”
Freedom House, a human rights advocacy organization, has labeled the environment of press freedom in Armenia as “not free” in every year after 2002. Over the past two years, “a war” was declared against journalists and media in Armenia, making it even more difficult to publish controversial information. Because reporters write about the falsification of elections and political pressures met by opposition parties, journalists in Armenia have become victims of harassment before and after elections. During the 2008 presidential election, the government declared a state of emergency because of mass protests in Yerevan and dictated that the media could only publish political news from the government.
The types of harassment against journalists have not changed: For those who reveal cases of corruption and abuse of power, there are physical and economic threats, as well as threats of criminal prosecution on libel charges. Unfortunately, these threats also include acts of violence: 18 cases in 2008 and 11 cases in 2009. Law enforcement agencies are usually unable to solve these crimes or choose not to for political reasons. This in turn causes new acts of violence and gives “the green light” to those who use violence to stifle media opposition.
The number of legal cases involving journalists has increased as journalists are increasingly accused of libel, insult or defamation of honor, dignity and business reputation. Although numerous European countries have urged Armenia to decriminalize libel or apply a reasonable financial penalty for it, the authorities do not intend to make such changes.
Edik Baghdasaryan, head of Investigative Journalists NGO, says that practicing journalism in Armenia is becoming more dangerous. “The authorities will be inclined to secure freedom of the press or speech [and] provide guarantees of journalists' security neither today, nor in future,” he says. “We shall protect our rights and freedom ourselves.”