Gor Abrahamyan

The imposition of restrictions on the freedom of speech included in the State ofEmergencydeclaration wasn’t so much an objective necessity on the part of the regime as it stemmed from their desire to stamp out dissident and opposition-based approaches and ideals. This is particular to all countries where authoritarian regimes reign and one of the most vivid characteristics of the political systems therein.

In the history of newly independent Armeniathe operation of the media has never been subject to such alien restrictions as was witnesses during the twenty day State of Emergencydecreed on March 1st by President Robert Kocharyan. With that decree, in addition to other restrictions placed on one’s freedoms, it was duly noted that, “The publication of information by the outlets of the mass media regarding state and internal political issues can only take place within the confines of officially sanctioned news. Without the expressed consent of appropriate government bodies political propaganda through leaflets and other means is prohibited.”

After this decree was approved the first question that arose was what exact objective did the regime desire to be pursue by the specific restrictions imposed on the media? The official explanation, as voiced by President Kocharyan and his press spokespeople days after the emergency decree went into effect, was that the aim was to decrease the intensified state of tension.

On March 20th, during conditions of the State of Emergency, Kocharyan invited members of the media to his last press conference and, addressing them directly, stated that, “There is much that depends on you, as to what steps we will take in the future, how are we to depict the problem to our people. Will we attempt to incite passions again, new tensions, or will we attempt the opposite, to help defuse all this? A rational and well thought out discussion of these issues can occur in an atmosphere of calm. Even domestically, where two people fight the most sensible thing to do is to separate them for 2-3 days in order for them to calm down so that afterwards some type of agreement might be reached.

And if you try at that point to bring them face-to-face, rest assured that they’ll only fight again with more serious results and that it will be much more difficult to have them reconcile in the future. I say this understanding and convinced of the fact that tomorrow certain newspapers will be loaded with false news, different demands and with such content that these papers will not serve to defuse and stabilize the situation.»

In fact, such interpretations of the decree, rather than speaking about separating the parties involved spoke about the absolute silencing of one of them. Thus any talk about defusing the situation becomes absurd when one of the parties is silenced and the other is free to slander and attack. The implementation of this selected approach thus forces one to conclude that these restrictions offered nothing in the way of easing the existing political tension.

Furthermore, the State of Emergency and the informational politics implemented by the regime at the time, brought to the fore a few other evident shortcomings that had the completely opposite effect. In particular, whilst the decree defined what couldn't be published the issue of who would be doing the monitoring was left unanswered; to what extent would the distributed news fall within the officially sanctioned parameters and specifically what mechanisms would be at work? It was apparent that a strong censorship phase was in the works. But who would be performing the censorship?

In the end, what resulted was that it was left to the discretion and mood of the control and command bodies, the police and the national security forces to prohibit any given article in the press. This is the reason that a host of print media outlets preferred to shut down operations during the entire emergency period rather than subject themselves to monitoring under such vague conditions; a situation that is much more dangerous than organized censorship.

Such a level of monitoring gave way, however, to another absolutely extreme manifestation. If the opposition press was subject to such pressures, the pro-government papers were able to reserve the right not only to disseminate official information but also to come out with their own observations, commentary and critical articles, something that was expressly prohibited by the President's decree. However, the police and the security services conveniently overlooked these violations. It was a total propaganda blitz and informational assault on our society that was hungry for news whose main aim was to force the people to accept the government's version of the March 1st events.

However, it was done so hastily and in an unorganized fashion that certain episodes of the process bordered on the comical. In particular, there was no rational or sane reason for the National Security Agency to shut down a number of Internet periodicals and news websites. If the regime actually believed that by taking such a step they'd solve the issue of restricting the flow of information over the Internet, then we can only conclude that the officials at this agency really don't grasp the modern technologies at work in the present information age. And if they actually had some comprehension of the technologies at work, what could they possibly hope to solve by such an action?

As a result of such actions a number of underground papers and new websites were created who posed more of a threat to the regime that the news outlets under its monitoring. As a result, slander and gossip became the dominant news form, something that psychologically had more of an impact on the average citizen than the ferocious propaganda assault implemented by the regime in conditions where there was an absence of alternative views. It is not by accident that during the entire twenty-day period of the State of Emergency the regime did nothing but refute the news circulating in the society by means of slander. On March 10th the President made changes to his original emergency decree that he officially described as easing the restrictions then in place.

According to President Kocharyan these modifications would define «only what could not be published» rather than «what could only be published», as was the case up till then. This difference in the underlying rationale of the law, however, had no real significance for the mass media outlets since those defining what was «permitted» and «prohibited» remained the same and they continued to work according to the same rules of the game.

The selected approach differentiating between «ours» and «our opponents» remained in place, the papers that had temporarily suspended operations continued not to publish and the blocking of Internet websites wasn't lifted. It was just a step taken by the regime to mollify those external pressures brought to bear regarding the government's restrictions on the media and the freedom of speech. However, perhaps even these illusory and nominal modifications might not have been enacted up till March 20th had   the regime not been convinced of the fact that the restrictions it imposed on the media were senseless from the very beginning.

Despite the fact that more than two months have passed since the lifting of the State of Emergency the regime's attitude towards the media outlets has not undergone any radical change. The principles and policies remain the same. A few newspapers have been the targets of tax audits and the only opposition TV station hasn’t been able to reacquire the right to broadcast through the court system. Things can continue on like this but that's not the issue. The fact remains that the State of Emergency, in essence, is still operational in terms of the functioning of the mass media.

P.S. - While criminal proceedings regarding the events of March 1st have almost fully entered the judicial phase, three main questions continue to remain unanswered. First, on what legal basis did the police confiscate the video footage of a number of TV stations exactly twelve hours before the State ofEmergency was enacted? Why is the clear fact of this violation of the law being overlooked by the criminal courts? Lastly, why haven't the TV stations involved raised this matter as an infringement of their professional responsibilities? Perhaps, the raising of the last question proved to be inconvenient....