“Fact” daily writes:

Immediately after the publication of the preliminary results of the elections, the question of whether or not the opposition will take the mandates became a topic of intense discussion. According to press publications, after a number of violations that occurred after the parliamentary elections in Armenia and the use of administrative resources, the opposition forces that entered the parliament, particularly the “Armenia” and “Strong Armenia” alliances, are currently discussing various scenarios, including the option of relinquishing mandates. But there are some nuances here that cannot be ignored

In Armenia and, in general, in the world, no serious political force participates in the elections to become the opposition, but this does not mean that in case of failure, all these forces should immediately give up their mandate.

Let’s make a simple assessment whether the opposition should take the mandate or not by answering a few questions.

Is the opposition harming Pashinyan and questioning his legitimacy by not taking a mandate? Answer: definitely not. It seems that the opposition’s failure to take a mandate is a blow to Pashinyan’s government, as if it shows that the system is in crisis, but in that case, Pashinyan is able to solve any issue in the parliament “in proud solitude” on his own, without the opposition and anyone to reckon with, without opposition. As for legitimacy, he has the support of the USA and the European Union, which have already congratulated the latter, which will provide an opportunity to “thump” any decision or action with legitimacy and the people’s mandate.

Will the opposition be stronger with a mandate or without a mandate? If the opposition does not take the mandate, then, of course, in the short-term future it can generate street, but today, after a number of unsuccessful attempts of street struggle and due to an unprecedented wave of violence, it is not ready to start an effective and victorious street struggle. In this case, the opposition should discuss the issue of taking the mandates and starting an institutional struggle, depriving Pashinyan of the opportunity to have a constitutional majority and votes in the parliament, as well as limiting Pashinyan’s absolute power to appoint a number of key officials: the Prosecutor General, judges of the Constitutional and Cassation Court, the Human Rights Defender, the chairman of the Central Election Commission, the chairman and members of the board of the Central Bank, the chairman and members of the Accounting Commission and other high officials. Also, it will be easier for the Khordarani opposition to coordinate and not allow the issue of handing over the enclaves, particularly Tigranashen, as well as the adoption of the new Constitution and the cancellation of the Declaration of Independence.

This, while not excluding the option of a street fight, because one does not interfere with the other at all.

The opposition, which has not passed the parliament, cannot destroy the 550,000 votes it received. So many people voted, and that vote cannot be lost. Of course, it is exclusively for the opposition forces to decide, and their voters should also trust them. Making such a decision cannot be “on the fly”, especially since a recount is underway, it has been announced to appeal to the Supreme Court, the opposition forces are conducting studies and discussions, as they themselves said, and finally, the final results have not been announced yet, and the final composition of the National Assembly is not clear. Nevertheless, the prevailing opinion is that the opposition should go to the parliament to start an institutional struggle. for example, Nikol Pashinyan, who became the government today, after the 2017 elections, when the newly formed opposition, represented by Nikol Pashinyan and the “Yelk” alliance, which received 7 percent of the votes after the parliamentary elections, took the mandates and started the institutional struggle, using the parliamentary podium and the parliamentary opposition resource to fight against the authorities, which was the basis for generating a street struggle and a change of power.

—