There is no super-prime ministerial model. it’s a joke. your fantasies to the Constitution

“Pressing” in the program Former First Deputy Minister of Justice of the Republic of Armenia, former Advisor to the President of the Supreme Court, “Justice through law” legal advisory of the company founder-director Grigor Muradyan: once again referring to the never-ending topic of the Constitution, he said.

“If Nikol Pashinyan was the president of the republic, in a semi-presidential or presidential system of government, how would he rule in your opinion?” Is he doing it differently than now? It is obvious, isn’t it, that he would have a majority in the parliament as well.

What is the peculiarity of the semi-presidential form of government? if the president has his own majority in the parliament (slightly simplified wording), he gets super-powerful, super-presidential powers and is practically not controlled by the parliament. In other words, an environment of complete permissiveness would be created.

It is enough to look directly at the current practice of France, where the current president, even without a parliamentary majority, still tries to dominate the legislative body. Such is the semi-presidential system. And if the president has that majority, then there are no obstacles in his way. This is in contrast to a full presidential system, where the parliament has clear control over the government, which is headed by the president himself.”

He also added that we would have a purely technical prime minister, who should be controlled by the parliament, while the president, who makes real decisions, would be out of this control. This was our previous practice and that is why we abandoned that system. Instead, we tried to introduce the model of full parliamentary control over the government, the highest body of executive power.

“Some so-called oppositionists complain about this, and I ask them the following questions.

First, if Pashinyan was the president of the republic within the framework of the semi-presidential system, what would you do?

“If you think that you would have been in power by assuming the position of Prime Minister and getting a parliamentary majority, don’t you think that the presidential elections would have been simply rigged,” said the former adviser to the President of the Constitutional Court.

He also appealed to the opposition parties dissatisfied with the existing Constitution.

“Dear oppositionists, get a constitutional majority in regular or special elections, develop your concept of amending the Constitution, change the Constitution, if, of course, you get the appropriate votes for it.
But today you second the ruling power, albeit with a different reason. Moreover, sometimes you join them with completely fictitious and even absurd justifications and become an advocate of changing the Constitution, trying to delegitimize our Mother Law, just like the ruling power is doing. You are simply repeating their steps, and here your motives have absolutely nothing to do with it. If the issue of transition to the semi-presidential system is of such central importance to you, then join the government and change the Constitution together.

Talks about that “super-prime ministerial” model are actually lies and do not correspond to reality. There is no super-prime ministerial model, there is unconstitutional governance. Yes, he made himself the super prime minister. But that does not mean that the management model is like that. Why are you talking about him passing illegal laws or violating the Constitution? Isn’t everything he is doing now written in the Mother Law? This is the problem.

Allow me to ask a few questions to those presenting such arguments. if we had a legitimate Constitutional Court, how would things be arranged in our country?

I mean such a Constitutional Court, which is guaranteed by this Constitution. Of course, the Constitutional Court in its previous composition was legitimate, but if the Constitutional Court, which was formed especially by virtue of this Constitution and gained complete independence, was preserved, would these authorities be able to establish dominance through illegalities, or, as you say, build a dictatorship? Of course not.
Then what are you complaining about? After all, these institutions were formed as a result of gross violations of the Constitution,” said Grigor Muradyan.

According to him: if we had not a sham, but a real president of the Republic, who used the powers assigned to him by the Constitution and carried out his unifying function, he could change a lot.

“Therefore, if you are against this model of governance, speak objectively, and not ascribe your imaginary ideas to the Constitution,” concluded Grigor Muradyan.

Details in the video.

—