Thoughts out loud.

I have never considered myself to be the only correct opinion. But I want politics to really become a place for open conversation.

As an opposition voter, I think I have the right to ask these questions to the opposition. I think that no one can dispute that right.

It is natural that the first addressee of the questions is the “Strong Armenia” alliance, because they formed the highest expectations of victory, almost without discussing any other scenario. There was no open conversation with voters about what will happen in case of defeat (in case of a real defeat or a fake one), what steps are planned in case of various developments, and what political decisions can be made in this or that circumstance.

Contrary to many predictions, political comments, calculations and expectations, the “Armenia” bloc did its best to consolidate its electorate. The core of their political campaign was the mobilization of their own electorate, and they solved that problem in the most comprehensive way possible.

Regardless of everything, I think that all of us, as opposition voters, deserve to receive answers to a number of important questions. Moreover, for me at this moment it is even secondary what those answers will be. I am ready to respect any political decision if it is justified, logical and honestly presented to the voter.

Therefore, I would like to hear clear answers to the following questions.

1. If you claim that the election results were falsified, are you going to challenge those results in the Constitutional Court?

If so, what volume and nature of violations are we talking about? Are we talking about violations recorded in individual precincts, or violations that, in your opinion, affected the final result of the elections?

2. If you are going to appeal to the Constitutional Court, do you trust that court?

Let me remind you that for years the opposition itself claimed that the Constitutional Court was formed during the reign of the current authorities as a result of political interventions and controversial processes.

Therefore, the question is clear.

do you trust that court or not?

3. If you trust the Constitutional Court so much that you move the key stage of your political struggle there, are you ready to accept the decision of that court as well?

In particular, if the Constitutional Court decides that the results of the elections should remain valid and there are no sufficient grounds to declare them invalid, will you accept that decision?

Or is the decision of the Constitutional Court acceptable to you only if it meets your expectations?

4. If the Constitutional Court does not meet your demands and the election results remain valid, then what will the opposition do?

Are you going to the parliament?

5. If you decide to go to the parliament, why?

What is the political goal that can be achieved in the parliament and cannot be achieved outside the parliament?

6. If you decide not to go to the parliament, then why?

What is the plan for further action?

What political result do you expect to get from that decision?

7. If the parliament is the platform of the struggle, what tools are you going to use?

What are the mechanisms that, in your opinion, can provide a real political result?

8. What do you consider to be the most effective result of the opposition parliamentary activity of the last five years?

What is the specific political, legislative or public influence that shows that the parliamentary mandate can be an effective political tool?

It is often hinted that “this will go on until the end of the year” or else, that the current government will not stay in power for long, that the political situation may change dramatically within a year or two.

Is there such a calculation in the logic of keeping the mandates and staying in the parliament?

If there is, tell me.

If there is not, then why are these hints continuously circulating in the political field?

10. Are you sure of the political reliability and homogeneity of your lists? To be honest, I am not sure, I know there is a problem. But say this too. Let those who want to take the mandate speak.

These are not accusations. These are questions that you must answer. Not in the form of slogans, not in the form of emotions, not in the form of another “soon everything will change” formulation, but with a simple, understandable and justified political explanation. You say your reasoning, your idea. Don’t tell what Nicole will do or say. Or even if that is your argument, say it directly.

Because the voter not only votes, but also has the right to understand what they are going to do with the political mandate obtained by his vote.

P.S. I am ready to accept any point of view different from my personal opinion, just justify it normally. And it is enough to say the Constitution one way or another. First, I am not the author of this, secondly, this topic has nothing to do with the Constitution.

Former Minister of Justice, former Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly Arpine Hovhannisyan

—