The Public Perceptions on Freedom of Expression in the RA

1. The Public Perceptions on Freedom of Expression in the RA Sociological Qualitative Research 2009

2. Methodology of Sociological Research Focus group Interviews The aim was to reveal the public perceptions on the Freedom of Expression (FoE). In-depth (expert) Interviews The aim was to reveal the state of the FoE in different spheres of human activity (censorship, obstacles to FoE etc.).

3. Methodology of Sociological ResearchFocus Group (FG) Interviews. 16 Focus Groups Location of FG,distribution Criteria for composition of FG, distribution

4. Main Results of FGMain Associative Components of Freedom of Expression (FoE) Fear, psychological pressure,punishment FoE is defined by the exclusion of the above mentioned negative phenomena Neccessity for boundaries to FoE FoE is valued when there are certain restrictions on it The pointlessness of FoE FoE is equated to the ineffectiveness and lack of success of speech and actions in personal lives The impossibility of FoE FoE is perceived as a “fairy tale” which never occurs in real life

5. Analytical Schema of FG ResultsAttitude Towards FoE is Different. • In case of individual character (personal style, individual qualities, etc.) • In particular (non-formal) relationships (family, kin, friends, community etc.) • In institutional (formal) relationships • Art, literature • Political field • Economic activity, social security • Legal field (social protection)

6. Analytical Schema of FG Results According to: • Individual character • In particular relationships • Institutional relationships The permissible level of FoE the following main types of thinking can be distinguished: • Traditional (patriarchal) • Political • Liberal

7. Analytical Schema of FG Results* The following are presented for each type: ideological legitimization desirable principles for regulation of FoE the acceptable and unacceptable limitations of FoE within all relationships The acceptable players responsible for the regulation of FoE in all relationships Where descriptions of characters concur with each other, they are presented together. Presented according to all types: Obstacles to, factors, modes and self-censorship of, FoE Ideal conditions for FoE Effective steps for re-establishment of FoE Necessary personal qualities etc. For FoE The position of RA relative to other countries on the issue of FoE Means for improving FoE *The respondents’ definitions will be directly given in quotation marks in the footnotes.

8. Traditional and Political CharactersEach of these is characteristic of almost half of the respondents Ideological legitimization • Preservation of Armenian Identity: Non-distortion of the character of ‘the Armenian’ Defined by traits considered appropriate and inappropriate, suitable and unsuitable to ‘the Armenian’ (dignity, shame, humility, etc.) • The survival of the nation (non-destruction). The preservation of ‘the Armenian’ cahracter is considered the guarantee of the survival of the nation. Deviation is regarded as the basis for the destruction of the nation. • Welfare of society A free environment for economic activity is considered important to secure welfare • Implementation of rights Social and legal protection is considered important for economic activity and social security

9. Traditional and Political CharactersDesirable Regulation of FoE FoE is regulated according to traditional (patriarchal) moral norms and customs:* • In the formation of individual character • In particular relationships As a means to preserve ‘the Armenian’character • In art and literature As a mechanism to preserve ‘the Armenian’ character *”That conservative is better, more sacred, more productive, more reproductive and illuminating than that ‘development’ imported from Europe”.

10. Traditional CharacterDesirable Regulation of FoE In the case of political activities (attitude toward the authorities) FoE is regulated according to the following principles (as a means and mechanism for the survival of the nation) • All-leveling national unity Diversity within the framework of homogeny • Tolerance toward illegalities of the authorities Confronting external threats by “sweeping the dust under the carpet” • The authorities as symbols of the state* The authority (president, prime minister, etc.), irrespective of the methods used to reach that position, is considered immune from criticism or ridicule. The latter are considered a threat to statehood. *”He is my president... It doesn’t matter if he is bad, base and a thief, I must respect him”.

11. Political CharacterDesirable Regulation of FoE *All the TV channels...are carrying out the demands of the authorities in order to keep the people occupied... (so that) women and men watch, and they do not get involved in politics; not be aware of their rights, not be aware of their responsibilities. A generation is being lost, a generation”. In the case of political activities (attitude toward the authorities) FoE is regulated according to the following principles (as a means to social welfare and security) • The state as a mechanism to secure the welfare of society The activities of the state apparatus should be directed toward raising the standard of living of society • Intolerance toward the illegalities of the authorities It is possible to overcome social injustice by criticism and protest*

12. Traditional and Political CharactersDesirable Regulation of FoE FoE is regulated according to democratic principles (Legislation) • In the spheres of economic activity and social security as an efficient means to secure social welfare • In the legal spheres (social security) As an efficient means to secure or protect welfare

13. Liberal CharacterCharacteristic to overwhelming minority of respondents Ideological legitimization • The liberalisation of ‘the Armenian’ The patriarchal system is considered a social injustice. Liberalisation is considered a mechanism for the development of state, culture , etc. • Democratization of RA, creation of a civil society Civil society is considered important within the context of the develpment and competitiveness of the state • Welfare of society A free environment for economic activity is considered important for securing prosperity • Implementation of rights The social and legal protection of the individual is considered important

14. Liberal CharacterDesirable Regulations of FoE *”Recently there was a ‘burial of the red apple’... Elderly women were speaking on TV, saying ‘Oh, a curse on them’... You know, we ourselves also think that after all something is holding you back from taking that step. But... there are girls who want to live freely. Let them live. It’s their life and their right.” FoE is regulated according to principles of democracy and civil society (Legislation) • In the formation of individual character • In particular relationships • In institutional relationships • On the whole it is characteristic to 18 – 30 year old girls; less frequently, to boys. • In particular relationships it is mainly characterised by tolerance of non-traditonal behaviour by others rather than a desire to personally behave in that manner.*

15. The Three Types of ThinkingObservations Traditional and political characters differ only in their attitude toward FoE in the politicalsphere. The first consider it a danger to statehood*; the second consider it a means for the development (normalization) of the state. All three types state the importance of FoE in the spheres which secure financial prosperity (economy, social welfare). All three types state the importance of FoE in the legal field as a tool for protection of FoE in the spheres securing welfare. The attitude toward art and literature is similar in the individual character and particular relationship, as it is considered a mechanism for the formation of the latter two. *”We are such an emotional nation that emotions always win until something very bad happens. History has shown that freedom is prohibited to such emotional nations; even democracy is wrong for us”.

16. Traditional and Political CharactersFoE in Individual Characters and Particular Relationships *”France, under the name of ‘developed’, comes to us ‘undeveloped’ Armenians and preaches to us that we can bury the ‘red apple’. And one day they may accept that homosexuality is in reality right, so that they can ruin this nation”. Acceptable boundaries to FoE: Individual’s sex life (pre-marital, extra-marital, homosexual etc.)* Personal free style and behaviour Completely equal relationships : Adult-juvenile, parent-child, man-woman (familial,community). Religious (not Armenian Apostolic) belief, etc. All those spheres which may result in the destruction of Armenian traditionalism and introduction of foreign culture (mores).

17. Additional Slide #1. CRRC 2006.The Acceptable age for Having Pre-Marital Sex

18. Traditional and Political CharactersFoE in Individual Character and Particular Relationships *Here we come across the ‘third person effect’, according to which, people are inclined to believe that the mass media has a greater effect on others than on themselves; no one in the FG groups mentions the changes in their own behaviour, brought about by the mass media. Dangers leading to the destruction of Armenian traditionalism: • Mass media (serials, films, advertisements)* • The showing of sex scenes and accessories, adultery etc. • The glorification of slang, the world of gangsters and criminals, etc. • Free style clothing and accessorising • In the case of men: long hair, jewellery etc. • In the case of women: revealing or masculine clothes , etc. • Non-Armenian dances • Erotic movements and attire • Bars, strip clubs, brothels • Sects • Homosexuals • Drug addiction

19. Traditional and Political CharactersFoE inIndividual Character and Particular Relationships The acceptable players responsible for limiting FoE: Society Control function Constitution, Legislation Introducing legal restrictions in areas outside of public supervision (e.g., mass media, bars, etc.) Individual Self-control, corresponding level of discernment Intellectuals Educational function (‘setting an example’) Head of the given institute (parent, teacher, etc.) Control function

20. Traditional CharacterFoE in the Political Field Acceptable restrictions to FoE:* • Protest demonstrations, marches, political actions etc. • Criticism, ridicule, etc. of the authorities (particularly in the mass media) • Political opposition (being anti-government) • Publication of state secrets (security of the country) Acceptable players responsible for restrictions to FoE: • The authorities, Leadership • Constitution, Legislation • Individual (through self-control), society (controls) • National Security Service • Intellectuals *”At that time when Kruschev was the king... Kruschev gave freedom of speech, the right to free expression... this was the exact opposite of Stalin’s thesis... It was from that point that socialism crumbled”.

21. Political and Liberal CharactersFoE in the Political Field Unacceptable restrictions to FoE: • Protest demonstrations, marches, political actions, etc.* • Expression of political orientation • Criticism of authorities, etc. • Political opposition (being anti-government) Acceptable restictions to FoE: • Unlawful acts and willfulness of the authorities • Immunity and rights of persons in authority • Publication of state secrets (security of the country) Acceptable players responsible for the regulation of FoE: • Constitution, Legislation • The legitimate authorities, leadership • Individual, society • Human Rights Defense organisations • Intellectuals *”They decide, this shouldn’t be permitted, put a couiple of shows or concerts here (as if) this is where they want to hold it. A1+ said something bad, shut it down , quickly, quickly. Do whatever you need to, (to ensure) information blockade... And an information blockade is in truth a dangerous phenomenon”.

22. Traditional, Political and Liberal CharactersFoE in the Economic and Legal Fields* Uncceptable methods of restricting FoE: • Unlawful acts (‘unwritten laws’) of the state (also non-state) system: Towards the individual or kin • Physical violence: beatings, imprisonment, etc. • Administrative pressure: dismissal from work, reduction in pay, etc. • Psychological pressure, threat • Abuse of position (particularly in establishing a monopoly) • Willfulness, etc. Acceptable methods of restricting FoE: • Constitution, Legislation *In the given field, there are no other acceptable limitations than those activities prohibited by law. Here we discuss the methods of FoE that are implemented in reality.

23. Traditional, Political and Liberal CharactersFoE in the Economic and Legal Fields *In in-depth interviews with: pro-government, extra parliamentary (1), pro-government, parliamentary (1) political parties and pro-government(1) media, only the individual is responsible (by fighting against, and preventing, the breach, etc.). Acceptable players responsible for the regulation of FoE:* State (by fighting against, and preventing, breaches of FoE, etc.) Society (control function) Individual (fighting against, and preventing, the breach, etc.) Court system (by implementing the law, punishing breaches) Human Rights Defense organisations Trade Unions

24. Traditional and Political CharactersThe Interchange of Principles Regulating FoE Individual character, particular relationships Democratic principles Are viewed as a threat* The consequences are deemed to be: Destruction of the“sanctity of the family” Destruction of “Armenianness” Spread of degeneration Annihilation of the nation Economic, Legal relationships Traditional norms Are viewed as a threat The consequences are deemed to be: Obstacles to wellbeing of society Establishment of social injustice Absence of social protection *At this level of relationships democratic principles are, on the whole, deemed to be similar to unrestrainedness and degeneration.

25. Traditional, Political and Liberal CharactersIn Individual Character andin Particular Relationships Real obstacles to FoE: Social control (community, family, etc.) Constitution, Legislation Self-censorship

26. Traditional, Political and Liberal CharactersIn Individual Character andin Particular Relationships Reasons for self-censorship:* Ridicule, insult, blame Discredit, gossip Isolation, alienation Physical violence Direct prohibition of actions, speech (silencing) Close social network in the community (tight personal space) Dependence on community relationships (getting a loan, calling for help, etc.) Upbringing (habitualizedinhibitions, reserve, humility, etc.) *According to E. Noelle-Neumann’s “spiral of silence” theory, the individual is inclined to avoid expressing himself, if he believes he will not receive social support”.

27. Traditional, Political and Liberal CharactersIn the Political, Economic, Legal Fields *”…Communities are becoming nonsensical. For example, if I have done something for this man (the head of the village) then he will watch out for me for 3 years. And if I have been a supporter of the opposition then I will not be able to profit from anything. Why?... During these 10-15 years this pressure has been wearing people down”. Main factors impeding FoE: (It is possible to hinder FoE by the following means) Unemployment, scarcity of jobs, low level of welfare Dependance for living conditions on the willfulness of one or more officials Clan norms(close inter-familial relationships and ties between cirlces of friends)* Society’s lack of awareness of rights and laws

28. Additional Slide #2. CRRC DI 2008.Most Important Issue Facing Country

29. Traditional, Political and Liberal CharactersIn the Political, Economic, Legal Fields Methods of obstructing (also reinstating) FoE: • Dismissal from work (individual or kin)* • Threats against individual or kin • Punishment of kin (also in other establishments) • Physical violence against individual or kin • Beating, killing, imprisonment etc. • Administrative willfulness, vindictiveness • Deprivation of pension, benefit and other privileges, non-provision of documents, deliberate carelessness, etc • Bribery • Hostility, defamation *”My husband is a member of a political party. They were saying to him, ’No, you have to come to this side. If you don’t, we will dismiss you from your job.’... Then, (when) he didn’t go, they dismissed him”.

30. Additional Slide #3. CRRC DI 2008. Trust Towards Institutions

31. Traditional, Political and Liberal CharactersIn the Political, Economic, Legal Fields *According to pro-government extra-parliamentary(1) and pro-government parliamentary(1) political parties responding in in-depth interviews, the reason is the lack of convictions and sense of responsibility in society. Reasons for self-censorship:* Fear of losses and willfullness Prevention of lawless acts, violence Defense of kin Uselessness of expression The ineffectiveness of attempts at reinstating FoE Lack of trust in the court, legal defense and other systems Community norms (pangs of conscience about bringing complaints against acquaintances, etc.)

32. Traditional, Political and Liberal CharactersIn the Political, Economic, Legal Fields Sources of ‘horrific’ stories: Personal experience Experience of kin or acquaintance Well-known scandalous incidents* (According to pro-government parliamentary (1) political party and pro-government (1) press,during in-depth interviews, the sources are public imagination, gossip and rare, coincidental events) *”Those who spoke (were) detained; those who spoke (were) killed; those who spoke, were put under pressure. They,with such intelligence, university graduates, clever people, what can we...(do)?”

33. Traditional, Political and Liberal CharactersIn the Political, Economic, Legal Fields The most effective strategy on encountering breaches of FoE In the overwhelming majority of respondents: Avoiding action Keeping silent In the minority of respondents: Stuggling within the framework of the law

34. Additional Slide #4. CRRC DI 2008. Do people like yourself have the right to openly say what they think?

35. Interpretation of the Additional Slide #4 in the Frame of Focus Group Interview Results In accordance with FG Results: • In response to the question on whether they possess the sufficient level of FoE in general, the respondents mentioned that they express themselves freely. • However, when the question was specified in details, it turned out that the respondentsmeant:* • those themes, which are according to them, open for discussion, and those are very limited (non-personal, non-political etc.), • in a “safe”environment (among like-minded people), in which they feel themselves free, and • through “safe” means, which do not assume publicity. • There are several areas, which does not fall under the themes of FoE: traditionaland political types, opposed to discussions about personal, family issues (in the case of traditional type that also includes politics) do not incorporate the above mentioned issues in the frame of FoE. • All 3 types mention the habitualized inhibition of the demand for free expression. *“I feel myself free only when I am alone, when I take a bathe”.

36. Traditional, Political and Liberal CharactersThe Ideal Conditions of FoE for the IndividualAll spheres An environment in which the following do not occur: Violence, punishment (physical, administrative, psychological) Coercion, threats(physical, administrative, psychological) Isolation delation, denunciation, etc. The ideal environment is within the circle of like-minded people

37. Traditional, Political and Liberal CharactersThe Personal Traits and Conditions Necessary for Free Expression in RA In the overwhelming majority of respondents: “suicide volunteer , “Kamikaze “crazy”, “hole in the head”, “mad”, “reckless” “fearless”, “brave”, “audacious”, “bold” (also, without taking into consideration public opinion) “alone”(without relatives) “having a backer”, “being well covered”, “having the support of a patron” “having money ”,“with a preferred country”* In the minority of respondents: “chameleon”, “two-faced”(able to change opinion in time) “stubborn”, “strong-willed”, “responsible”, “educated”, “intelligent,””someone who knows the law” “just”, “honest” Also “drunk”, in the case of men *”(He/she should have) a preferred country where he must flee; to whit, one way, not return”.

38. Illusion of FoE: “The Glass Chamber”* The “invisible walls” (obstacles) of one’s individual privacy The rights enforced through the legislature are suppressed by the society in accordance with moral norms. “Invisible isolators” of legal actions The actions and speech, directed to the implementation of law and restoration of rights enforced by the legislature remain ineffective. As a result people refuse to take actions. *In order to describe the unwritten laws inhibiting upward mobility, sociologists and economists use the term «glass ceiling» (Carol Hymowitz and Timothy Schellhardt, 1986).

39. The Ranking of RA against Other Countries, with Respect to FoE 1 2 3 Low level of FoE Medium level of FoE High level of FoE Muslim, African, Central Asian and other countries RA, post-Soviet countries (except the Baltic states) Europe, USA,China, etc

40. Desired Ranking of RA against Other Countries with Respect to FoE 1 2 3 Low level of FoE Medium level of FoE High level of FoE *”Is the status of the muslim woman attractive?... Is a smart, well-dressed, neatly turned out woman pleasant . or one tottering around like a rag doll...nothing there?.” “ There are countries, where… women do not have the right to show their faces. Their life must be a real disaster.” In close to half cases the following is desirable: The maintenance of the present position (2) Movement toward 1 is considered regression because of the excessive retrictions to freedom (particularly for women) characteristicto those countries.* 3rd ranking for RA is considered loss of “national character”, leading to the path of possible annihilation of the country.

41. Desired Ranking of RA against Other Countries with Respect to FoE 1 2 2՛ 3 Low level of FoE Medium level of FoE High level of FoE *”If, soto speak, a woman wants to work, strives for education... Let them give her freedom in those things. But to stray from the path... or go to bars, let them not give her freedom. But..., where there is a calling toward family, a love ofstudying , a desire for work, let there be freedom”. For a large part of the remaining half of cases, the following is desirable: “A little” Europeanization (2՛) 2՛ is considered the desired level of rule of law without the degeneration characterisic to liberal countries. Sometimes 2՛ is desired to reach a certain ‘harmless’ level of liberalisation in particular relationships.* Movement toward 1 is considered regression because of the excessive restrictions to freedom (particularly for women)characteristic to those countries 3rd ranking for RA is considered loss of “national character” leading to the path of possible annihilation of the country.

42. Methods for Improving the State of FoE FG Suggestions According to the overwhelming majority of respondents: • Eradication of the factors hindering FoE(unemployment, wilfulness, clan norms, lack of awareness of laws) • Eradication of corruption in the court system • Implementation of the law(especially in regards to high ranking officials)* • Establishment and development of institutions which TRULY work for the defense of rights(re-establishment of trust, making the office of Ombudsman an elected one)** *”In developed countries we see that they caught a minister, tried him; a president. Show me anyone in our Armenia who has been tried for his wrongs... Such a thing doesn’t exist”. **”The HRD... were an elected body… then it would not pay attention to anything anyone might say, it would be standing by the people”.

43. Methods for Improving the State of FoE FG Suggestions According to the minority of respondents: Change in authorities (legitimate authority) Raising the level of civil consciousness in society Overcoming traditional stereotypes through campaigns United struggle against illegal acts (demonstrations, protests etc.)

44. “Public opinion is not what people think, but what the public is willing to publicly acknowledge they think.” T. Harrison 1940

45. Methodology of Sociological ResearchIn-Depth Interviews. 31 RespondentsCriteria

46. General Description of In-Depth RespondentsTypification Distributed in the following manner, in decreasing order: Traditional, found in all categories “This is also a form of free expression which does not conform to any… logic. Irrespective of everything, you feel that whether the person in that position has attained that post through fair means or foul, nevertheless there is the issue of stability (of the country)”. “I have decided not to subscribe anymore. On one of the last pages of the newspaper "X" we read: "Devoted to virginity and the ‘red apple’: complexes, typical for the Armenians". It means, that this newspaper is specializing on the issues of promoting adultery and fornication... They want to destroy the family, because they say virginity is unnecessary. If the virginity is not necessary, than the fornication is normal”. Political, found in all categories Liberal, more characteristic in representatives of the arts and literature “Sex is not discussed; it doesn’t exist.With us, procreation occurs vegetatively or, I don’t know... They cut the barrel and bury it in the soil. The sex organs do not exist.No one speaks about it ... everything is done in a closed, repulsive, pathological way. Probably, if Freud had been in Armenia, he would have written two extra volumes”. “The girl thinks that if she says,”I want you”, the boy may think, “Who is this, this depraved hussy”... so she doesn’t say it. But ... It’s normal that she wants the boy. She’s not going to want a horse, is she? And the boy should accept that (the girl wants him ) as normal”.

47. Non-Government OrganisationsCensorship (State) censorship present in mass media “I sent an article to the ‘Republic of Armenia’newspaper about the accounts of Lake Sevan to show... how much inaccurate information they are giving to the government. The editor... has said,“yes, not bad, it’s good, but a pity that I have already printed an anti-government article this year”. Do you understand? The (official)press which in fact serves the state... is carrying out anti-government and anti-national activities”. Coercion and threats by state structures “It was 97-98 when the ministry of defense began a very severe attack on us through all the television stations when we raised the issue of those killed in the army”. Authoritarianism of high-ranking officials, rigid mind-set, intolerant of other viewpoints “In all discussions... they switch off the microphone. For example, that X ... in the Presidency chamber of the National Academy of Sciences, in everyone’s presence, said,”I won’t allow, respondent’s name, to speak as his viewpoint does not correspond to our viewpoint”.

48. Non-Governmental OrganizationsObstacles to FoE Censorship present in mass media “(Particularly) TV broadcasting… is under, I wouldn’t say complete, but quite severe supervision by the authorities and FoE is fairly restricted.There have been incidents when we have called a press conference and they haven’t come. It is possible to consider this as, in some way, an obstacle to my being able to say what I want to society”. The low level of competency of officials “X, is nagging, sending applications to almost all the heads of communities with a request for some ordinary information. Some of the heads of the villages,may be, are illiterate, don’t know the law and have replied late. So he has taken them to court”. The inadequate level of civil consciousness in society “Let’s assume… if we talk about the rights of prisoners… both in society and among intellectuals, this is very difficult to comprehend. They immediately assume, “Are you defending the rights of criminals?””

49. Art, Literature Censorship Competition between the media “It’s a veryfunny reason. In Armenia, one television company may not broadcast it , saying ‘That other one is broadcasting it and I’m not on good terms with it...’”. Clan norms existing in the mass media and the artcritic-literary community “This kind of gangish, hoodlumy relationship,an unprofessional approach, unprincipled... And an absence of taste ... What a lot of bad things I said, right?” Low level of competence and fettered (not free) thinking in the artcritic-literary community;

50. Art, LiteratureObstacles to FoE Low level of competency in superiors and leaders “I printed on the poster that entrance for children under 16 was prohibited and the next day he (the director of the theatre), in order to to fill the theatre, brought in an audience of a busload of children from Etchmiadzin. Of course, I did not play the role and the next day, he terminated my contract”. Administrative willfulness on the part of superiors and leaders, and their immunity “It is pointless doing anything because the man has been given unlimited authority and you are absolutely not protected. I do not have those leverages… the directors (of establishments) also consider themselve to be little princes”.