Financial discrepancies in the Vagharshapat Community Elections
In the pre-election phase of the Vagharshapat local self-government body (LSGB) elections, the issue of financial transparency of political parties is again in the spotlight. Recent amendments to the Electoral Code stipulate that banks submit data on the financial movements of political parties to the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (CPC), which then summarizes and publishes them on its website. Concurrently, the oversight service of the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) publishes summary data on the financial inputs and outputs of pre-election funds.
According to the “Akanates” (Eyewitness) observation mission, a comparison of the information published by the two bodies reveals discrepancies. For instance, according to the CPC’s statement dated October 27, 10 million drams were transferred from the bank account of the “Civil Contract” party to the pre-election fund, but this amount is not reflected in the CEC data. Moreover, the party is conducting an active campaign, and by law, campaign expenses are only allowed using funds from the pre-election fund. As of October 27, the CPC’s published statement recorded no expenditure from the bank account of the “Homeland” party. Meanwhile, the CEC data indicates a 1 million dram input into the party’s pre-election fund on the same day. Similar discrepancies were recorded for the “Hanrapetutyun” (Republic) and “Zharangutyun” (Heritage) parties. In the case of the “Haghtanak” (Victory) alliance, the amount deposited exceeds the reported expenditures of the constituent parties of that alliance.
Besides numerical differences, there is also an issue with the publication format. The CPC publishes the data in segments that are subsequently edited without clear notations. The CEC’s oversight service, in turn, constantly updates a single, unified document without preserving previous versions, which makes comparison impossible.
“These two formats significantly complicate the oversight functions of the media and observation missions in terms of verifying data compliance and credibility. The uncoordinated work of these two bodies, which are obliged to ensure the transparency of political financing, makes effective control over the financial flows used in the elections impossible,” the statement notes.
The uncovering of such processes can, on the one hand, prevent abuses and ensure fairer competition. On the other hand, however, uncoordinated or partially truthful data introduced into the information field can become a tool for legal pressure. Consequently, genuinely competing candidates may be excluded from the main race.