THE BALL IN THE FIELD BELONGING TO ARMENIAN PAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT
LILIT POGHOSYAN
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on April 26, 2008
Armenia
These days when the pro-oppositional powers backing LTP, loyal to their
fundamental thesis `the worse the better’ are making efforts to
intensify the atmosphere of the social confrontation, certain political
circles are over again trying to advance the hypothesis of
extraordinary parliamentary elections, as a balm for discharge and a
key for the dialogue between the authorities and the opposition.
Below we introduce the observation of the secretary of the Republican
Parliamentary Faction Samvel Nikoyan regarding this and other issues.
`Firstly: have the elections on the state level ever become a tool for
social solidarity. I would say, on the contrary. Consequently
extraordinary elections can’t contribute to the stabilization of the
situation. Moreover it is simply intolerable.
Secondly: the Constitution clearly enshrines the cases based on which
we can dissolve the parliament and hold new elections: in case the
parliament doesn’t confirm the government program within two months, in
case the parliament doesn’t convene sessions for more than three
months, in case the parliament is unable to take decisions within three
months.
Which means if the parliament is working regularly and totally fulfils
its obligation, its independent activity must be guaranteed by the
Constitution, so that other wings of the ruling power won’t be able to
dissolve the parliament. This is a mechanism of balancing different
wings of the ruling power and mutual moderations. And those who propose
holding extraordinary elections, either don’t have any idea about the
Constitution or they simply don’t want to.’
`In 2007 Armenian Pan National Movement boycotted the Parliamentary
elections and now they regret, and they want to fill this gap. How do
you estimate this stance from the point of view of the formation of
political culture and the accomplishment of the political system?’
`Each political power, if it has intentions to participate in the
political processes and if it is interested in the stabilization of the
political field, must start the construction of that system not from
the roof but from the base, which is the local self government.
So they should start from the elections of the Local Self
Government-Bodies and settle there, later participate in the
parliamentary elections, in case of getting sufficient votes;
participate in the formation of the government and only after that to
think about running for president with their own candidate.
This is the foundation based on which you can build the roof. The
contrary is not only incorrect from the point of view of political
sciences but also without any prospect.
Political powers must have active participation in all the elections.
You can’t pin your hopes upon an individual, his authority, and
rhetorical talent. How can you suddenly run for president without any
participation in the political processes taking place in your country?
Why didn’t they participate in the parliamentary elections? Because
they were not sure in their success, because they were well aware that
they don’t have sufficient weight in the society. How can a political
power try to come to power being attached to an individual? Is it the
fault of the state or the people that, before, they didn’t have any
desire to participate in the political processes? Are we obliged to
adapt our state and political processes with their caprice? Of course
no!’
`Radical opposition responses to your readiness for dialogue by making
announcements about the new season of rallies. They even used the
anniversary of the Genocide, to use their aggressive anti-governmental
advocacy. Don’t you think that in such circumstance the proposals for
dialogues heard form `inside and outside’ are simply senseless?’
`Proposals for dialogue can’t be senseless, no matter who makes them.
In any case dialogue is indispensable. We have made proposals for
dialogue both before and after the elections. Many political powers,
both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary, have entered the field of
dialogue, right up to the formation of coalition.
It is another issue that some part of the pro-oppositional camp is not
inclined to having a dialogue. Of course it is desirable to see the
before mentioned part of the opposition participating in the dialogue.
But firstly we must clarify one thing: dialogue with whom and what are
the conditions?
Dialogue usually assumes two parties: the ruling power and the
opposition. Supreme authority in Armenia belongs to the President of
the Republic. He is the one to have a dialogue with the opposition. If
this part of the opposition doesn’t accept the decision of the
Constitutional Court, which means they don’t recognize the legitimacy
of the President, who should they negotiate with?
That is to say dialogue first of all presumes dialogue with the
President, which means they must accept the election returns and the
decision of the Constitutional Court. This means the ball is in their
field. They must recognize the election returns, as it is written in
PACE resolution in black and white, and only after that, those who have
nothing to do with the massive violence, robbery and devastations must
be immediately released.
But, I would like to repeat: how can we speak about a dialogue when one
party doesn’t accept the other one, when the only thing they want is to
seize power and they speak only about the overthrow of power. In this
case it is really senseless to speak about a dialogue.’