Statement by Raffi K. Hovannisian
Chief, Department of Information and Publications, Republic of Armenia

The first round of Armenia's special presidential elections was the
most open and transparent in the nation's history. The differences
between the polls of 1995 and 1996, on the one hand, and March 16,
1998, on the other, are qualitative, substantive, and tangible to all
impartial observers, domestic and international.

There did occur, unfortunately, several confirmed irregularities of
varying degrees. Those responsible must be brought to justice,
regardless of the identity of the candidate in whose purported favor
they acted.

Such electoral violations form the basis of a preliminary report
issued yesterday by the OSCE delegation monitoring the elections. In
contrast with the findings of the Council of Europe and CIS observer
missions, the OSCE asserted "deep flaws" at 15 percent of precincts
visited and, among others, in the field of media bias. It concluded,
nonetheless, that these flaws did not bear on the election's ultimate
outcome.

Without passing judgment on the content and context of the allegations
made by the OSCE and by several presidential contenders, I would
suggest that a thorough, comprehensive, and objective assessment of
the media, both state and private, might have determined that
notwithstanding certain bad media habits inherited from the previous
political period, significant measures were indeed taken to ensure a
level information field for all candidates-in terms of both access and
substance. It might even be said that most departures from accepted
journalistic standards had a net negative effect on the candidates for
whom they were made. Moreover, the very right of immediate, on-the-air
response afforded to critics of such behavior, together with the fact
of open protest and its wide coverage, begs the conclusion of a marked
improvement in media openness and balance.

There remains much to do in this area. Still, a determination, however
preliminary, of media bias seems not to capture the full reality of
the situation, and is particularly concerning as it comes from
professionals the media of whose countries are very active not only in
investigative reporting but, when necessary, in the expression of
political opinion.

We are hopeful that the second round of Armenia's presidential
elections on March 30 will be essentially free from the shortcomings
of the first, that the media will continue to demonstrate their
growing commitment to democratic development, and that relevant
observers will contemplate the process in its entirety, making
appropriate distinctions between procedural violations by partisans
and ulterior provocations by election discreditors.

March 19, 1998
Yerevan