The Partnership for Open Society initiative has launched a discussions series called Armenia in a Process of Constitutional Amendments. The first discussion, Civil Society’s Views on Constitutional Amendments in Armenia, took place in Yerevan on 20 February 2020. The purpose of the discussion was to understand whether constitutional amendments are critically necessary for achieving the rule of law, restoration of justice, and accountable governance in the country, and to present civil society’s views on the amendments and the key principles that must be enshrined in and guaranteed by the reformed constitution.
The key topics discussed included accountable governance by means of safeguarding balance between the branches of power and proper oversight of each branch, achieving the rule of law through an independent and effective judiciary and prosecution and investigation services, and human rights.
The event was attended by ambassadors accredited in Armenia, experts, and representatives of international organizations, civil society, and the mass media.
Opening the discussion, Levon Barseghyan, chairman of the Asparez Club of Journalists, stated that, in the aftermath of the Velvet Revolution, numerous political and public figures were demanding and suggesting that the authorities make a political assessment of the state capture that had occurred in the country. “The political assessment that had to be adopted on the level of the National Assembly should have addressed the full scope and mechanisms of the state capture and outlined the reforms the country needed to develop,” he said. Levon Barseghyan identified two reasons for the failure to make such an assessment to date: “Firstly, the authorities, namely the legislature, do not share this view of our past. The majority in the legislature does not believe that state capture had occurred. As a second possibility, which I consider a less likely and less desirable explanation, is that they are concerned about disgraceful international pressure that our country will face,” said Barseghyan.
Turning to the constitutional amendments, he expressed the belief that a completely new constitution should be adopted, instead of revising and amending the current one. Barseghyan said that sufficient time must be given to the public for becoming familiar with and grasping the draft new constitution or draft amendments in the current text, before holding a referendum. He underlined that the Constitution must enshrine the safeguards and principles of transparent and accountable governance, direct democracy, and proportionate development of the country.
Artur Sakuntz, head of the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor Office, noted that the futility of the current Constitution became obvious in 2018 when Serzh Sargsyan was trying to prolong his term in power, but the Revolution took place. “How did the Constitution work? Did it provide solutions, or any time for changing the political status quo? No, it did not. In a parliamentary system, electing a representative of the minority as Prime Minister is absurd. The rule in the Constitution must be implemented, but absurdly, it was only ensured under mass popular pressure,” said the human rights defender. Sakuntz believes that the current Constitution enshrines the principle of a stable political majority, which is meant to ensure one-party rule. “They tried to invent a model of manageable democracy in Armenia, but failed. This Constitution is unchangeable, because any draft amendment must be first approved by the Constitutional Court, as per the principle that the power is unchangeable,” he said. Sakuntz noted that the Velvet Revolution dismissed not only the previous government, but also the Constitution that had secured the capture of the state. “This Constitution is one that leads the country into a deadlock, a crisis that can be overcome only through the subjective wishes of the Prime Minister or a particular group. Therefore, we are convinced that a completely new Constitution is needed,” he underscored.
Genya Petrosyan, head of the Fund for Development and Protection of Law, noted that the constitutional amendments process should reinstate the constitutional safeguards of respect for human rights, which shrunk considerably because of the 2015 constitutional amendments. The human rights defender noted that, as a consequence, Armenian citizens cannot challenge before the Constitutional Court legislation that contains breaches of their rights. “There is essentially no avenue for challenging breaches of rights. The safeguards of respect for a number of fundamental human rights have shrunk considerably in the current Constitution, including but not limited to the safeguards of the presumption of innocence and the right to personal liberty and security,” underlined the head of the Fund for Development and Protection of Law.
Stepan Grigoryan, head of the Analytical Centre for Globalization and Regional Cooperation, believes that drafting a new Constitution would make sense only if a new Electoral Code and a new Law on Political Parties are drafted and adopted, as well. “The parliamentary system cannot work effectively without a multi-partisan system. The Constitution must enshrine a provision on the transparency of political party finance. Moreover, the notion of a stable majority must be eliminated, because it is counter-indicated in a parliamentary system,” said the speaker.
Arsen Kharatyan, head of Alik Media, spoke about the need for checks and balances in the new Constitution. He noted that none of Armenia’s constitutions was a product of a consensus in society. “This is the reason why we have a constitution that is a compilation of legal incidents. With every next step, we face a new challenge, and the document deprives us of the possibility to shape public relations or the political processes,” said the speaker. Arsen Kharatyan agreed with the preceding speakers about the need to adopt a new constitution, because the current text was written to ensure the political longevity of one political force. Kharatyan noted that the absence of genuine balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial powers is obvious in Armenia today. To him, the most serious problem is that the Constitutional Court is politicized. “Any affiliation of courts with political groups must be ruled out. The discussions of a new constitution must focus primarily on the rehabilitation of the judiciary,” he said.
Hayk Martirosyan, representing the Transparency International Anti-Corruption Center, believes that one must first define the objective of the constitutional amendments. “Although we have a parliamentary system today, the Constitution allows a non-partisan person to enter the Parliament in the list of a party, then quit that party’s faction, but remain a member of parliament and keep their mandate. This contradicts the very logic of a parliamentary system. One must choose a government system that will help the political system to develop and parties to become stronger,” said Martirosyan.
He believes that the new constitution must reframe the framework of parliamentary oversight of the country’s domestic and foreign policies. The example cited by Martirosyan was the process of appointing ambassadors in Armenia: he said that the appointment of ambassadors must be subject to confirmation by the Parliament in order to ensure parliamentary oversight of foreign policy. The speaker believes that the new constitution must also enshrine parliamentary oversight of national security and defense.
Avetik Ishkhanyan, president of the Helsinki Committee of Armenia, noted that, starting from the 1990s, he has believed the parliamentary system to be the more effective model of government, because it can genuinely secure the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. Ishkhanyan believes that a number of amendments must be made in the Constitution, including a provision whereby the National Assembly shall have 101 members, and not “at least” 101 members. The article on incompatibility of the parliamentary mandate should be revised to preclude any possibility for parliament members to engage in business. Ishkhanyan is a proponent of increasing the powers of the President. He believes that amnesty, for example, must be a power of the executive power, so it should be transferred to the President, and the President must be elected by broad consensus, rather than just “absolute majority” of the Parliament. The President should have the power to make proposals and comments on adopted laws, and when necessary, return an adopted law to the National Assembly, instead of simply signing and sealing the law after adoption.