The debate between Presidential candidates happened. This is the most important result of the two-hour television face-off of incumbent Robert Kocharyan and challenger Stepan Demirchyan who face each other tomorrow in the second round of Armenia's Presidential Elections.

Following the controversial charges of election irregularities and continuing rallies of opposition parties, increasing tensions seemed to exclude room for a democratic debate. Other debates which had preceded the face-to-face meeting were between representatives of the two confronting camps and looked more like arguments than civil discussions.

This view was shared by many voters. "If these debates will bear the same character as ones we have been watching it's better not to have them at all," said a 52-old year tutor of Yerevan Pedagogic Institute. There is an opinion that atmosphere around a possible meeting of Presidential candidates was supercharged intentionally.

Demirchyan's camp declined to participate in the debate up until just a few hours before it happened, so few voters expected to see the Demirchyan sitting in front of Kocharyan at 9:30 p.m. Demirchyan had complained that the format was not appropriate and would be little more than a Kocharyan press conference.

Strangely, Demirchyan and his supporters began to discuss the format of the debate just a few hours before it started. Previously, they had focused on preconditions such as punishing people accused of election irregularities and release of activists arrested after the opposition demonstrations.

Voters remembered that the late Karen Demirchyan didn't accept the invitation of Kocharyan to participate in debate in 1998 when both of them were running for President and also faced a run-off.

If Demirchyan's participation was by itself an achievement, the debate proved that Kocharyan's experience and knowledge were far beyond that of Demirchyan. The concern over the format is understandable since Demirchyan's supporters were trying to save their protégé. He needed it desperately.

And, it's not surprising that during the debate Demirchyan answered questions often using the phrase, "problems will be solved in a natural way," while Kocharyan provided details and numbers about the solution for each and every problem, often using the expression "one more interesting project…."

As a result, the discussion sometimes turned into a Kocharyan monologue. The challenger appeared to not have ideas on such important issues as anti-corruption, constitutional amendments, prospects of Eurasian Economic Cooperation, etc. While Kocharyan answered these questions, Demirchyan was doodling like an annoyed schoolboy. Yet, he was charming.

Karabakh turned out to be a top issue. According to Demirchyan, Karabakh is a problem of its people and government and Armenia should not carry much responsibility for it. Conversely, Kocharyan said Yerevan must directly support Karabakh and be active in the negotiation process.
The candidates agreed that the conflict should be resolved peacefully.

There were differences also in perception of Armenia-Azerbaijani relationship, particularly whether or not it is possible to start cooperation with Azerbaijan without a resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Kocharyan's opinion is that cooperation is preferable and need not be attached to the final resolution of the conflict, rather, it will be helpful in finding solutions and softening approaches between two countries.

Demirchyan didn't share this position. His point of view was close to that of Azerbaijan which insists that a final resolution of the conflict is the starting point for cooperation.

Of course, the candidates didn't avoid mentioning the upcoming elections and voting irregularities of the first round. Kocharyan made it clear that cases were being investigated. Regarding Demirchyan's claims that authorities have fired his supporters, he was unable to present any specific cases to Kocharyan. The lack of facts at Demirchyan's disposal made his claims light-weight.

The main plus of the debate was that the electorate was able to watch a calm and quiet conversation between the candidates. In the tense atmosphere of the last few days, this dialog was critical. People were able to see candidates smiling, even joking. The soviet style address of Demirchyan to the incumbent as "Robert Sedrakich" also contributed some warmth into the discussion. And when Demirchyan said he would work with his team, Kocharyan quipped, "Oh, you decided to adopt my slogan?" (Kocharyan's slogan is, "Let's work together.").

These exchanges created some ease which was felt not only by journalists in the studio but also viewers. Many people agreed that opponents displayed a good will, especially Kocharyan who was balanced and reserved.

"It was obvious that he didn't want to achieve a cheap victory. It was so easy to do that," said a Kocharyan supporter, pensioner Armenuhi Shiladjyan.

It appeared that Kocharyan didn't want voters to feel sorry for Demirchyan because he knew that Armenians will sympathize with underdogs. On the one side was a strong, experienced leader operating with facts. On the other an ambitious, inexperienced, young politician-populist. This was an important factor since many people in Armenia do not vote based on ideology but personality.

In this context there is no sense to ask who won. The main benefit of the debate was that Armenia was the first among post-Soviet countries of the region (including Russia) where the Presidential election debates were held.

And though Kocharyan and Demirchyan didn't shake each other's hands after the debate, it was obvious that the winner was the Armenian society.

(Naira Manucharova is a 15-year veteran journalist who has written for various Amenian newspapers and was a correspondent for Russian publications. She served as deputy editor and political analyst of Novoye Vremya newspaper before joining ProMedia, a USAID-sponsored media strengthening program, where she is Local Program Manager.)