Constitution of the Republic of Armenia

[Armen]

Constitution of the Republic of Armenia

 

Electoral Code of the Republic of Armenia

 

I don't have much to say on this now but a want to mention some points. Armenia has a presidential system, which I think is wrong. The President is the only veto player. Rigid constitution that is very hard to amend.

 

A country like Armenia in a region like Caucasus should have a more flexible system and policy making process.

Edited December 15, 2003 by ArmenSarg

[MJ]

The institute of presidency is the biggest flaw of Armenian constitution. In a small country like Armenia, where there is no tradition of checks and balances and no tradition of independent judiciary there cannot be more dangerous institution than that.

 

In early 90's the presidency of Armenia was created for one person - to suit his needs and to perpetuate the prevailing at the time status quo. The next person came to like it, too, since it gave him the leverage to screw the country further and destroy its barely breathing political culture and paralyze the rest of the institutions of statehoods. Today, in Armenia, there is no shred of judicial system and the parliament is a mere formality or nuisance for some.

 

In my view, the system established in 1918-1920 was and still is the best structure of Armenia's governance. How can one get back to it, I don't know. It would be very hard to change it, though. However, I think so far as the current system (which is basically a mixture of German and French systems) prevails, there cannot be a serious hope for a balanced political life in Armenia.

[Armen]

Great points! Excuse me for the question MJ, are you in science?

 

Your words were exactly what I wanted to say. Can you tell more on 1918 constitution?

 

I think the best system for Armenia would be the majoritarian system of UK, or the mixed majoritarian one of Israel of New Zealand.

[MJ]

Great points! Excuse me for the question MJ, are you in science?

 

Your words were exactly what I wanted to say. Can you tell more on 1918 constitution?

 

I think the best system for Armenia would be the majoritarian system of UK, or the mixed majoritarian one of Israel of New Zealand.

Used to be. Had enough of it, though.

 

And I agree with your last points, too.

 

I cannot tell you much about the constitution of 1918 - haven't seen nor am aware of the existence of such.

 

However, the structure of the First Republic was a good one - a parliamentarian system with direct elections, with a prime-minister assigned by the winning party. Through, in such systems governments change frequently, as it has happened with the First Republic (in the 2 year period of its existence, Armenia has had 5 or 6 prime-ministers and governments - from the same party.) But I don't think it is bad - if the given government cannot perform, it has to go. If it loses its trust with eh people, it has to go. If the reality dictates change of polices, the presiding government has to go. I know some would say that such system may lack stability and continuation. But as I have once written somewhere, the desirable stability and continuity are not manifested through the preservation of the same government but through smooth passage of power from one elected official/body to another.

[Armen]

Through, in such systems governments change frequently, as it has happened with the First Republic (in the 2 year period of its existence, Armenia has had 5 or 6 prime-ministers and governments - from the same party.) But I don't think it is bad - if the given government cannot perform, it has to go. If it loses its trust with eh people, it has to go. If the reality dictates change of polices, the presiding government has to go. I know some would say that such system may lack stability and continuation. But as I have once written somewhere, the desirable stability and continuity are not manifested through the preservation of the same government but through smooth passage of power from one elected official/body to another.

It should have been the other way round. Presidential in 1918-1920 (because the disagreements costed us the Kars and Ardahan) and parlamentarian after 1995. The Karabagh war was over and there was no need for power concentration.

 

All the political turmoil in Armenia comes from this source - 1995 contitution.

 

1996 presidential elections failure=> 1998 coup d'etat => october 1999 => "elections" 2003

 

I call 1996 failure because we elected a President (Vazgen Manukian) who was a simple coward.

 

Do you know if Ashot Navasardian was presidential candidate in 1996?

[MJ]

1. It should have been the other way round. Presidential in 1918-1920 (because the disagreements costed us the Kars and Ardahan) and parlamentarian after 1995. The Karabagh war was over and there was no need for power concentration.

 

 

2. Do you know if Ashot Navasardian was presidential candidate in 1996?

1. I disagree with this. It is factually inaccurate. No "disagreement" has cost us Kars... It has been resulted from a simple demoralization and treason from a government and governing party, which was opposed to Armenia's independence in the first place and had done enough in short two years to be hated by her own people.

 

2. Was it 1996 or 1992?

Edited December 15, 2003 by MJ

[Armen]

1. I disagree with this. It is factually inaccurate. No "disagreement" has cost us Kars... It has been resulted from a simple demoralization and treason from a government and governing party, which was opposed to Armenia's independence in the first place and had done enough in short two years to be hated by her own people.

 

2. Was it 1996 or 1992?

1. Thanks for clarification. So, the presidential system in 1918 would bring to the same results because of the lack of self-consciousness in Armenian politcal elite (mostly Dashnakcutyun). Is this right?

 

2. So, Navasradian ran for president in 1992. Why didn't he run in 1996? I think the outcome would be quite different. He would not behave like Manukian.

[MJ]

1. Thanks for clarification. So, the presidential system in 1918 would bring to the same results because of the lack of self-consciousness in Armenian politcal elite (mostly Dashnakcutyun). Is this right?

 

2. So, Navasradian ran for president in 1992. Why didn't he run in 1996? I think the outcome would be quite different. He would not behave like Manukian.

 

1. I don’t know if it necessarily attests to the fact of the lack of national consciousness, though, in a proper sense of the word, it certainly was in deficit. The fact of the matter is that while the First Republic of Armenian had evolved with huge leaps since the day of her establishment, effective sometime mid-1919 the downfall of Armenia had started. The Severes treaty was the most destructive thing for her future. Her government had totally failed to define a coherent policy and strategy, had certainly demonstrated that the yoke on Armenian people by an Armenian government was no preferential to the yoke of Turks or Russians, had failed to lead the country, had already started to plunder what little there was, had gotten tangled in admittedly very complicated regional politics and had no purpose. Other than pompous speeches it had not accomplished much. After all, what would you expect from a party, which was opposed to the independence of Armenia in the first place?

 

2. Even by 1992 or in 1992, Ashot knew that he had no chance to be elected

president. He also knew that just for running he would be chastised and ridiculed on a personal level. However, two years earlier he (along with his friends and comrades) had established a new political party (the first national party in the history of Armenia to be established on the soil of Armenia and the first and last national political party formally registered in the former USSR on the territory of USSR), for which V. Manoukyan once said, “you guys just pulled away the most delicious piece of the pie.” Ashot was simply driven by the task of elevating his party’s profile and its transformation from a military-political entity to a political one, for the sake of making a relevant statement for the future and opening the door (as you understand, in few years, his party became the ruling party of Armenia.) Even then, many major political activists/leaders of Armenia were stating, “we know that the power in Armenia will belong to your party in few years of time, but now it is a little early. We all will join you in due time.” Additionally, since his release from the Siberian camps (after spending accumulated 12 years there), he was in terrible health – just going on based on the strength of his spirit - even when defending the borders of Armenia with AK in his hands, fighting Soviet Army in outskirts of Yerevan or Nakhicevan or participating in the liberation of Karabagh. By 1996 his health had only deteriorated more, he was tired of everything, discouraged and depressed by the troubling developments in Armenia, had realized that things had not evolved according to his dreams, was aware of his inability to change the course of events and so on. There was no rationale for him to run in 1996. Furthermore, all he wanted for him, personally, was to go home and lie in bed to take care of his shuddered health and finally spend some time with his family. Besides, the base that he would’ve liked to have around him and rely on was either six feet under, or out of country or denigrated. He gradually became a lonely voice in a desert. By 1996, Armenia was a whole different country than it was in 1992 – a lot had changed for the worst and the worst predictions of 1990 had materialized.

 

He could not bear what was going on in Armenia – in particular her plundering. He was also already isolated, even though formally he was still the chairman of the party he had established. In 1998 he passed away from what is suggested to be heart failure.

Edited December 15, 2003 by MJ

[Armen]

1. Don't you think that the First Republic of Armenia couldn't have survived anyway because of the major regional or even global geo-political reshape. I mean where could Armenia fit between Turkey, Soviet Union and Iran. It would be obliged to join the regional security system through either of this countries.

 

2. As I understood you knew Navasardian personaly, right? The story clarified a lot for me.

Edited December 15, 2003 by ArmenSarg

[MJ]

1. No. I don't think so. But it is past midnight, here, and I need to go to bed.

 

2. I guess, you may say so.

[Armen]

Constitution

 

Chapter 3

The President of the Republic

 

Article 49.

 

The President of the Republic of Armenia pursues the upholding of the Constitution and the ensuring of the normal activity of the legislative, executive and judicial authorities. The President of the Republic is the guarantor of the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic.

 

Article 55.

 

The President of the Republic:

 

3) Can disperse, after consulting with the president of the National Assembly and the Prime Minister, the National Assembly and designate special elections. Special elections take place no earlier than thirty and no later than forty days after dispersal of the National Assembly. He cannot disperse the National Assembly during the last six months of his term.

 

4) Appoints and dismisses the Prime Minister. He appoints and dismisses members of the Government at the proposal of the Prime Minister. In the event the National Assembly expresses no confidence in the Government, within a twenty-day period he accepts the resignation of the Government, appoints a Prime Minister, and organizes a government.

 

9) Appoints and dismisses the Chief Prosecutor at the proposal of the Prime Minister.

 

10) Appoints members and the president of the Constitutional Court. On the basis of the finding of the Constitutional Court, he can terminate the powers of a member of the Constitutional Court appointed by him or approve his arrest and his being subject to administrative or criminal liability by judicial procedure.

 

11) In the manner provided for in Article 95 of the Constitution appoints the presidents and judges of the Court of Appeals (Vchrabek dataran) and its chambers, and of the review, first-instance tribunal and other courts, the Deputy Chief Prosecutors and prosecutors heading structural subdivisions of the prosecutor's office; can terminate the powers of a judge, approve the arrest and subjecting of a judge to administrative or criminal liability by judicial procedure; and dismisses prosecutors appointed by him.

 

14) In the event of an immediate danger threatening constitutional order and upon consultation with the president of the National Assembly and the Prime Minister, undertakes measures warranted by the situation and makes an address to the people about them.

[Armen]

RFE/RL Armenia Report - 12/15/2003

 

Yerevan Rally Heralds Start Of New Opposition Offensive

 

By Emil Danielyan

 

Armenia's main opposition alliance launched at the weekend what appears to be a new campaign of street protests against the `illegitimate' ruling regime when it rallied supporters in a working-class suburb of Yerevan.

 

Stepan Demirchian and other leaders of the Artarutyun (Justice) bloc indicated that they will hold a series of similar gatherings across the country in the coming weeks to drum up public support for their idea of a `referendum of confidence' in President Robert Kocharian. Some of them warned that the authorities' failure to hold such a vote could set off the kind of popular rebellion that toppled the president of neighboring Georgia.

 

`A referendum of confidence is a civilized way of solving the problem of the government's legitimacy in Armenia,' Demirchian told a crowd of over a thousand people who gathered in the city's southern Shengavit district. `If that possibility is not used, full responsibility for further developments will fall on the authorities.'.......

 

The opposition, including the National Unity Party of Artashes Geghamian, has since been trying to use the idea of the referendum, floated by the Armenian Constitutional Court in April, as a rallying point for its activities. Many oppositionists are clearly buoyed by last month's `rose revolution' in Tbilisi that followed a parliamentary election also denounced as undemocratic by Western observers.

 

`If the Georgian scenario is repeated here, I will only give the thumbs-up,' said Kristine, a history teacher.

 

The possibility of such a course of action appears to have also alarmed Kocharian who went on state television in the immediate aftermath of Shevardnadze's ouster to dismiss any parallels between the political situations in the two South Caucasian neighbors. He warned his opponents against attempting to replicate their Georgian counterparts.

 

Kocharian and his allies have repeatedly ruled out the possibility of a national vote of confidence in the Armenian president, saying that the Constitutional Court did not have the authority to make such proposals. They also argue that while European and U.S. monitors strongly criticized the authorities' handling of the presidential ballot, they never explicitly challenged its outcome.

 

The current Armenian parliament is dominated by Kocharian's loyalists and is unlikely to accept the opposition demands for the referendum. Still, its majority was tricked by veteran lawmakers from Artarutyun, notably Dallakian, into inadvertently including the issue on the parliament agenda last month.

 

The National Assembly, according to its statutes, must discuss the issue in February at the latest. But its leaders have already made it clear that they will use legal loopholes to delay the debate indefinitely.

Edited December 16, 2003 by ArmenSarg

[Armen]

Kim Balayan appointed Constitutional Court member

 

15.12.2003 01:18

 

YEREVAN. (YERKIR). - Kim Balayan was sworn in as Constitutional Court member on Monday at the National Assembly session attended also by President Robert Kocharian.

 

Balayan vowed to safeguard Armenia's Constitution and constitutional Court's member.

Balayan was elected to the Court by the National Assembly.

 

The Armenian legislation requires that the county's president be present at the ceremony of inauguration. Upon his leaving the parliament, President Kocharian joked he would like to stay longer in it.

[Armen]

Article 100.

The Constitutional Court by procedures stipulated by law:

 

3) Resolves disputes relating to referenda and results of elections for the President of the Republic and delegates.

 

Article 101.

The Constitutional Court can be appealed to by:

1) the President of the Republic;

2) at least one third of the delegates;

3) candidates for the President of the Republic and for delegates in disputes related to the results of elections; and ....

[Armen]

Our constitution is a total absurdity!

 

Just have a look at this point in Chapter 3, Article 55:

 

 

14) In the event of an immediate danger threatening constitutional order and upon consultation with the president of the National Assembly and the Prime Minister, ( the President, edit. A.S.) undertakes measures warranted by the situation and makes an address to the people about them.

---------------

 

This article clearly states that the only way to remove a government is a military standoff.

[MJ]

1. Don't you think that the First Republic of Armenia couldn't have survived anyway because of the major regional or even global geo-political reshape. I mean where could Armenia fit between Turkey, Soviet Union and Iran. It would be obliged to join the regional security system through either of this countries.

To get back to your question, I do think that Armenia had the best chance of survival then. It had 60,000 best trained and experienced army in the region - that was the first guarantee. Second, Turkey was the first country in 1918 to recognize Armenia's independence. Third, Russia, for a while (1919), was interested in helping Armenia to get a special status resembling that of Finland and this was directly offered to the Armenian government, to which, the Armenian delegation headed by the famous writer Shant (isn’t it interesting that almost all leaders of Armenia at the time were poets, writers, publicists…?). Armenian government’s response was, “Great Britan is promising us Armenia from the See to the See – “Dzovits Dzov Haiastan.”) Basically, by taking such a stupid posture and claiming what would never be realistically possible nor in the interests of the Republic, Armenia took itself out of the map – at least as far as Russia was concerned. In 1919 Severs came through – the most devastating and stupid idiocy every proposed to Armenia. This treaty basically forced the collapse of any potential unity that one might have hoped for from the Armenian side. The Armenian political leadership split into two – those favoring Severs and those opposed.

 

It is noteworthy that while living under the Ottoman rule for centuries, Armenians had always pledged loyalty, but after being almost annihilated and practically entirely deported, over the sadden the same forces which had comfortably always collaborated with Ottoman Turks and had completely pushed under the rug the aspirations of Armenia’s liberation, became vociferous advocates of Severs Treaty. It is noteworthy to mention that one of the former prime ministers of Armenia, Kachaznuni, then had said something like this: “If we gather all Armenians from all over the world, hold each others’ hands and line up on the borders of the proposed territory [by the Severs Treaty], we cannot even cover the perimeters of the land.” The government of Armenia had failed to control the territories under its ‘control’ (be it Kars, Nakhichevan, Kharabag, Zangezur or Djavakhq), but was opting for more which was not even in Armenia’s national security interests. Furthermore, what the Armenian leadership had demonstrated was that given the opportunity, Armenian’s are not much different from Turks and may be as cruel. I will not go into details on this subject for now. Pretty much even the allies of Armenia had gotten fed up by the Armenian government, its criminal endeavors, inability to maintain law and order, inability to govern the country, and so on. In about one year, from being a model country Armenia had turned herself into nuisance and liability for others. Basically everyone turned their faces away from Armenia.

 

It is further to be noted that they had succeeded in demoralizing the best army of the region and were busy with the plundering of the enormous foreign aid that Armenia had received – be it cash or food. (Slightly departing from the main topic, I’d like to bring an interesting fact to your attention: During the elections, the government representatives were traveling into the villages and offering sugar, flour, etc, for the vote of the presents. Haven’t wee seen the same this year?)

 

Perhaps I can continue at a later time.

[THOTH]

please do continue MJ...a fascinating perspective...wish i knew more of the details (never read Hovasinian's treatise...but i imagine it would explain much)...still I cannot believe that the falure was all internal - obvioulsy the Turks of 1922-24 etc were much different then those who recognized Armenia in 1918 (in the brief and only period of Turkish repentanance)...and Russia too - could one ever believe that they truly thought of anything other then their Imperial ambition (in regards to the Cacuses - or anything)?

[Armen]

- It had 60,000 best trained and experienced army in the region - that was the first guarantee.

- Second, Turkey was the first country in 1918 to recognize Armenia's independence.

- ... isn’t it interesting that almost all leaders of Armenia at the time were poets, writers, publicists…?

- ... allies of Armenia had gotten fed up by the Armenian government, its criminal endeavors, inability to maintain law and order, inability to govern the country, and so on.

- ... it is further to be noted that they had succeeded in demoralizing the best army of the region and were busy with the plundering of the enormous foreign aid that Armenia had received

Not only the election campain buy also all your points I quoted are valid for the present situation. Millitary analysts often call the Karabagh Army the best in South Caucasus, Turkey was one of the first countries that recognized Armenia, L. Ter-Petrossian was a humanitarian, strong criminalized oligarkhs, gradual demoralization in the army, plundering of foreign aid. We always had difficulties in learing the history lessons, even a historian like LTP.

 

However I want to disagree with you on the issue of Armenia's opportunity to maintain independence at that period because Turkey would not support Armenia's independece in 1920 (taking into account the agreement between Lenin and Ataturk), its landlocked position, and the overall plan of the Bolshevik government.

[MJ]

1. Not only the election campain buy also all your points I quoted are valid for the present situation. Millitary analysts often call the Karabagh Army the best in South Caucasus, Turkey was one of the first countries that recognized Armenia, L. Ter-Petrossian was a humanitarian, strong criminalized oligarkhs, gradual demoralization in the army, plundering of foreign aid. We always had difficulties in learing the history lessons, even a historian like LTP.

 

2. However I want to disagree with you on the issue of Armenia's opportunity to maintain independence at that period because Turkey would not support Armenia's independece in 1920 (taking into account the agreement between Lenin and Ataturk), its landlocked position, and the overall plan of the Bolshevik government.

 

1. I largely agree worth you. LTP has made some serious mistakes, in my view. He missed the opportunity to put things on a right footing at earlier stages. He will be held as a subject for a judgment by the history. In a way, perhaps he was too liberal and didn’t want to appeal to stiff measures. Perhaps he didn’t even have the power to do so, or figured that if he’d try, the consequences would be much worse. This is a very complicated subject. Which may only indicate that the similar subject related to the First Republic may be only more complicated.

 

2. I didn’t say that in 1920 Turkey wanted to support Armenia’s independence. In two years a lot had changed. Armenia is far not the only landlocked country on the earth. I am also aware of the Attaturk-Lenin tango. But the opportunities had been squandered before that tango started. The argument I am trying to make is similar to something like this: when someone already has AIDS, there is not much that can be done but to mitigate his/her death, but in most of the cases, something could be done so that the person does not get infected with AIDS.

Edited December 19, 2003 by MJ

[alpha]

My two cents about LTP. While he made numerous mistakes, one has to acknowledge the fact that he was pivotal figure in establishing an independent Armenia. If LTP did not take away the weapons from HAB and didn’t incorporate Yerkrapah and other paramilitary units into a newly established army in 1990 Armenia would have had the faith of Georgia, failed state. LTP went away from political stage peacefully, unlike Gamsakhurdia or Elchibey. Given the circumstances I think history will judge LTP’s performance very positively, since it was during his presidency that war was won, Armenia became the most stable state in the region. The biggest failures of LTP are the presidential elections in ’95, and the fact that he did not have a good personnel policy and surrounded himself by clans and shady figures.

[Armen]

RFE/RL Armenia Report - 02/02/2004

Monday 2, February 2004

 

Opposition Fails To Force Parliament Debate On Kocharian Referendum

 

By Ruzanna Khachatrian

 

The pro-government majority in Armenia's parliament thwarted on Monday

an opposition bid to force a debate on legal amendments that would pave

the way for a `referendum of confidence' in President Robert Kocharian.

 

Majority leaders said the idea, floated by the Constitutional Court

following last year's disputed presidential election, has no legal and

political basis and does not even merit a discussion on the parliament

floor. But their opposition foes, grouped in two minority factions,

warned that the move will only prolong the lingering post-election

tensions in the country.

 

The two dozen opposition deputies, mindful of their lack of influence

in the National Assembly, staged a demonstrative walkout just before

their motion to include the issue on the agenda of this week's

parliament session was put to the vote. Only five lawmakers voted for

it in their absence, while as many as 80 others voted against.

 

`We had elections only several months ago and we see no need to keep up

tensions in the society,' said parliament speaker Artur Baghdasarian.

 

Baghdasarian and his allies reiterated their arguments that the

Constitutional Court's referendum proposal had a non-binding character

and does not stem from Armenia's basic law. Levon Mkrtchian, the

parliamentary leader of the governing Armenian Revolutionary

Federation, said such a vote would be unconstitutional because

Kocharian is a legitimately reelected president.

 

The opposite camp, on the other hand, stood by its vote rigging

allegations and referred to a constitutional clause stipulating that

`power belongs to the people.' It again threatened a fresh campaign of

anti-government demonstrations. `The opposition is being driven into

the streets,' warned Hrant Khachatrian of the Artarutyun bloc.

 

A similar warning was issued by Artashes Geghamian, the outspoken

leader of the opposition National Unity Party.

 

In the words of the main author of the draft amendments to the Armenian

law on referendum, Victor Dallakian, the two hitherto rival opposition

groups will join forces to fight for their cause. `The Artarutyun and

National Unity factions are united in their resolve to restore

constitutional order and form a legitimate government in Armenia and

will act in a coordinated manner,' he declared.

 

Dallakian said the opposition and its supporters now have a free hand

to `take power back from the one who usurped it.'

 

However, it remained unclear what specifically they now intend to do.

Geghamian and his party have until now avoided any participation in

Artarutyun-led rallies.

[Armen]

Armenian Constitutional Battle

Parliament fights over the powers of the president.

By Naira Melkumian in Yerevan (CRS No. 253, 15-Sep-04)

 

Caucasus Reporting Service

Sept 16, 2004

 

The autumn session of the Armenian parliament which began this week

will be dominated by reform of the constitution, with a battle already

raging between the ruling coalition and the opposition.

 

Two proposed sets of changes to the constitution have been put forward,

one formulated by the three-party pro-government coalition and the

other by opposition deputy Arshak Sadoyan, leader of the National

Democratic Alliance of Armenia.

 

The main bone of contention is the division of powers between different

branches of government, with the pro-government coalition signalling

its desire to strengthen presidential powers.

 

The leader of the pro-presidential nationalist Dashnaktsutiun group

in parliament Levon Mkrtchian argues that the present situation in

the Caucasus requires strong presidential authority and there is no

case for a change to a more parliamentary system.

 

"The coalition's proposal is proof of the strong position of the

president," commented political analyst Stepan Safarian from the

Armenian Centre for National and International Studies.

 

Especially controversial is a proposed change whereby the president

can recommend a new government programme to parliament three times and

choose to dissolve parliament if it is rejected on the third occasion.

 

Sadoyan is proposing that on the third occasion parliament itself

should be able to form the government. A compromise proposal is being

discussed according to which if there is deadlock on the third attempt

the president can nominate a new government but it has to be approved

by parliament.

 

Armenia is currently under strong pressure from the Parliamentary

Assembly of the Council of Europe, which decided this week to debate

progress made on a series of obligations it put to the Yerevan

government (and also to Azerbaijan) at its October 4-8 session. The

government has agreed with the Council of Europe that it should make

amendments to its constitution before the end of 2004 and no later

than June 2005, by a national referendum.

 

A referendum held last year on a previous set of constitutional

amendments failed to receive sufficient support from voters. On coming

to power in 1998 Robert Kocharian pledged to reform Armenia's 1995

constitution, but only drew up a package of proposals in 2003.

 

Tigran Torosian, deputy speaker of parliament and head of the working

group which is drafting the changes, told IWPR that the package

of amendments would be a significant step forward for Armenia,

guaranteeing "improvement of the constitutional mechanisms of the

realisation of rights and basic freedoms of an individual, the

introduction of a system of checks and balances in the government,

guarantees, the creation of an independent and unbiased judicial

system and local authorities".

 

Leading human rights activist Avetik Ishkhanian, head of Armenia's

Helsinki Committee, does not agree. "In the new drafts, human rights

are very declarative as there are no mechanisms to protect rights

and they only exist on paper," he told IWPR.

 

Opposition deputy Shavarsh Kocharian of the Justice group in

parliament makes broader criticisms, saying that of 121 articles in

the constitution, only 20 are being substantially changed and only

four of these are changing in a positive direction.

 

Kocharian - who is no relation of the Armenian president - says he

is concerned that the pro-government coalition wants to increase the

number of presidential terms the head of state can serve from two to

three. Robert Kocharian is currently serving his second term as head

of state.

 

"The new amendments are definitely intended to increase the power of a

president, who has decided to keep himself permanently in power, like

the leaders of the Central Asian countries," said Shavarsh Kocharian,

warning that this could turn Armenia into a "tyrannical state".

 

Torosian rejected these charges, saying, "In 2003 when we were

working on the previous draft of constitutional changes, there was

a similarly absurd kind of talk but in actual fact nothing of this

kind was included in the draft. In the new draft there is no such

paragraph and there are no proposals to include it.

 

"This kind of talk comes from the sphere of parapsychology, not from

law-making and these people are obviously pursuing political goals."

The differences on the constitution run not only between pro-government

parties and the opposition but within the two movements as well.

 

For example, the Dashnaktsutiun Party wants to see a completely

proportional electoral system in parliament, while its partner,

the Orinats Erkir Party, wants to preserve the existing balance of

80 per cent of seats elected via proportional representation and 20

per cent through constituencies.

 

Gurgen Arsenian, the leader of another small pro-government group

in parliament, the United Labour, surprised his coalition partners

by saying that his party withdrew its support for the constitutional

reforms in their current form and that they would come up with their

own proposals.

 

Meanwhile, some opposition members are saying that Sadoyan did not

agree his proposed constitutional amendments with his parliamentary

allies and that he is breaking an agreed opposition strategy of

boycotting legislative work in parliament.

 

Sadoyan told IWPR that his alternative proposals were in line with

party policy and that he would ignore the opposition boycott and

debate the issue in parliament.

 

Experts say there is very low confidence amongst the public in

Armenia's constitution and how it can be enforced and almost no public

discussion of it. Even when it was first adopted in 1995, Safarian

said, "People doubted its legitimacy. They did not consider it to

be theirs and did not take it seriously as they were not convinced

that it had an importance in their life. Certainly there is a need

to revise the constitution but people should understand it."

 

Safarian said the parliamentary battles over the constitution were

"purely political competition" and politicians displayed little

evidence of caring about the public.

 

"I believe neither the government, nor politicians nor people

need a revision of the constitution," Yerevan schoolteacher Stepan

Mnatsakanian told IWPR, speaking for many. "The problem is not the

laws we have but how they are enforced. Why spend time and money

improving the articles of the constitution when the most democratic

of them are broken."

 

Naira Melkumian is a freelance journalist in Yerevan.

[Armen]

ARMENIAN OPPOSITION OFFERS GOVERNMENT DEAL ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

 

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/civi...eav012705.shtml

[Armen]

Eurasia Insight:

 

CHANGE TO COME FOR ARMENIA'S CONSTITUTION?

 

Haroutiun Khachatrian: 7/05/05

 

Armenia’s ruling coalition and opposition appear poised to reach a consensus on amendments to the country’s constitution. The breakthrough comes after persistent intervention by the Council of Europe and could signal an end to the opposition’s 18-month boycott of parliament.

 

Constitutional reform is a pivotal political issue for Armenia. Overtures to western organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union have picked up pace in recent years and Yerevan appears eager to throw its lot more decidedly with the West. Making the case that the government is committed to democratic reform constitutes a key part of that process.

 

At a June 28 press conference with Shavarsh Kocharian, a member of the opposition Ardarution (Justice) bloc, Tigran Torosian, deputy chairman of the National Assembly, announced that the ruling coalition and opposition are very close to a consensus on a draft constitution that includes provisions recommended by the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional law. In a statement released that same day, Roland Wegener, chief of the Council of Europe’s monitoring mission, described the accord reached with the Venice Commission a critical step for Armenia’s ongoing democratization.

 

The changes advocated by the Venice Commission and opposition and accepted by the government cover three main areas. Under the Commission’s recommendations, the president would no longer be able to dismiss the prime minister at will and a new prime minister would require the approval of a majority of parliament’s members.

 

The provision is seen as essential for balancing the distribution of power between the president and the parliament. Constitutional amendments passed by the National Assembly in a first reading in May 2005 stipulated that the president may dissolve a newly elected parliament if that body twice fails to endorse presidential candidates for prime minister. The current constitution does not allow the National Assembly to be dissolved until one year after its election has passed.

 

The election of Yerevan’s mayor presented a second key concession. Under Armenia’s current constitution, the country is divided into 11 provinces (marzs), with governors appointed by the central government. Yerevan, home to roughly half of the country’s population of 2.98 million, holds the status of a province. Apparently fearing the emergence of a powerful political rival, both Kocharian and Armenia’s first president, Levon Ter-Petrossian (1991-1998), had favored keeping the mayorship an appointed position.

 

The third concession concerned the Council of Justice, a body that plays a key role in appointing judges. The government had initially refused to remove provisions from the draft constitution that name the president chairman of the council. The Council of Europe had recommended that such a change was necessary to establish the independence of judicial power.

 

After final changes are made to the document and approved by parliament in late August, the proposed constitution will be put to Armenian voters this November in a national referendum.

 

With the opposition already welcoming the government’s decision to accept the Venice Commission’s recommendations, both sides now appear optimistic about the course of political change. “It's too important that the referendum to be held in Armenia by November be crowned with success and Armenia receive a new chance for its development, [for the] extension of democracy, as a result of which the country will become a [leader] in the South Caucasus,” Noyan Tapan news agency reported Torosian as saying in explaining the decision to adopt the Commission’s proposals and work with the opposition.

 

If the draft submitted to the Venice Commission "completely corresponds to the memorandum and the requirements publicly put forward by the opposition are fulfilled," Shavarsh Kocharian stated, the opposition would take part in the parliamentary debates scheduled for August, when the draft constitution will be up for a second reading. The National Unity opposition faction has already declared that it will abandon its boycott of parliament to do likewise.

 

“The expected reforms . . . [are] a good ground for Armenia to be . . . able to [advance] in its development and to . . . differ from not only Azerbaijan, but, also, Georgia,” Kocharian said.

 

President Robert Kocharian first proposed changes to Armenia’s 1995 constitution upon coming to power in 1998, but the reforms have been a start-and-stop process until now.

 

The newfound agreement, however, came as the result of steady pressure. An earlier referendum in 2003, submitted by the government one year later than promised, failed to gain voters’ support. Past delays in advancing constitutional reform prompted the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) to include this issue as an urgent topic of discussion in its June 2005 session.

 

In a June 23 resolution during PACE’s summer assembly, the body delivered a de facto ultimatum to Armenia for this latest draft: “The Assembly strongly believes that, for the sake of its own people and for the sake of its further European integration, Armenia cannot afford another failure of the constitutional referendum.” The document calls on Armenia to hold a referendum on an amended constitution no later than November 20005 and for the opposition to end its boycott of parliament, launched following the disputed re-election of President Kocharian in 2003, and promote the Council of Europe’s recommendations.

 

Armenia will resubmit its draft constitution to the Venice Commission by July 7 for further discussion.

 

However, numerous difficulties remain. Armenia’s ruling coalition must approve the changes made based on the recommendations and send the document once again to the Venice Commission for approval.

 

Only after parliament approves the final draft document, will preparations for the November referendum begin. These include a public awareness campaign as well as work to remove irregularities from voter lists that have plagued past Armenian votes.

 

Getting Armenians to turn out for the vote, however, could prove the ultimate test. In a recent poll conducted by the private Vox Populi organization, only 29 percent of some 624 Yerevan residents definitely planned to take part or were likely to take part in the November referendum, Armenialiberty.org reported.

 

But for now, a lack of voter interest does not appear to figure into PACE strategy for working with the Kocharian administration. With an eye to encouraging Armenia's constitutional reform process, the assembly’s June resolution simply urges the government “to provide for the coming into force of the constitutional reform as soon as reasonably possible.”

 

Editor’s Note: Haroutiun Khachatrian is a Yerevan-based writer specializing in economic and political affairs.