Armenia at a Legislative Crossroad

As the head of the Republican Party, Sargisian may indeed wield some influence because it is the public’s opinion that the Republican Party will continue to dominate the parliament for the foreseeable future.

But that cannot last forever, as it has been proven time and time again Armenia’s recent history shows that political parties have an ephemeral nature and they are anchored on oligarchs or powerful individuals rather than a set of beliefs or principles.

A case in point is Gagik Zaroukian’s Prosperous Armenia Party, which experienced a dramatic growth and importance in Armenia’s power structures, only to be pulverized when his business interests were threatened. As of now, it has become a marginal party hanging on to the coattails of the Republican Party.

Therefore, the transformation into a parliamentary system will mean progress in democracy, as the political parties mature and stand on their own, advocating their particular political philosophies or maintaining a platform.

But because Armenia has not reached that level of political sophistication yet, the road towards a more democratic system should not be blocked at this stage.

The constitution already underwent one level of transformation during Robert Kocharian’s administration in 2005, adopting the semi-presidential system.

The proposed constitutional reforms were launched in 2013 with the input of the experiences of more advanced democracies. The recommendations of the Venice Council have also been integrated in the proposed amendments. The Venice Council, which was created under the aegis of the Council of Europe, operates under the paradigm of “democracy through law.”

Former President Kocharian is opposing the constitutional changes, because, he insists, “the proposed amendments fail to provide the true ‘decentralization’ which is one of the purported aims of the reform.”

While Kocharian opposes the reforms based on principal, the opposition parties are promoting the “no” vote, on the principal of opposing every directive from the government.

The Armenian National Congress, headed by former president, Levon Ter-Petrosian, held its own rally to oppose the referendum.

Heritage Party founder Raffi Hovannisian and Founding Parliament headed by Jirair Sefilyan, are conducting their own “no” campaign.

The “no” campaign is not always based on substance; it is mostly motivated by politics, as it is revealed by the statement of one of the opposition leaders, Aram Manukyan, who recently visited Georgia, where the parliamentary system was adopted and the democratic process is experiencing its own growing pains.

“I have met members of political parties represented in the parliament, Georgia is facing serious problems today. They say it was not timely. I don’t mean at all that the parliamentary model is not good; it was just a matter of expediency.”

Manukyan added that he opposed the reforms because the country “is on the threshold of war.”

It may sound ironic that all three traditional parties have adopted an identical position supporting the “yes” vote. The ARF, Social Democratic Hunchakyan Party and the ADL have all expressed their positions and they have been siding with the administration. The reason they support the “yes” vote does not mean they are in the pocket of the present administration. As traditional parties, which have many years of experience under their belts, they see the prospect of future developments as the other parties mature and the parliamentary system becomes truly functional then there are opportunities of power sharing. The ARF has the added incentive of favoring the referendum because it has chosen to join the ruling party in a coalition.

During the remaining short time before the referendum, the undecided voters have to make up their minds. But the government is convinced that the yes position will carry the day on December 6. Otherwise, they would not have taken the chance.

One way or another, Armenia’s legislative drama will end on December 6.