“CIVIL SOCIETY AGENDA TOWARDS SNAP PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS.”

Necessity of Constitutional Amendments in New Armenia

The constitutional referendum held on 6 December 2015, shifted Armenia from semi-presidential to a parliamentary republic, giving the executive power to the prime minister and leaving the president with mainly ceremonial role. The referendum was driven by political interests rather than the needs of the Armenian public, and as the events of April 2018 showed, the reform was a means for Serzh Sargsyan, president since 2008, to remain in power after the end of his second (and final) term. Protests against Sargsyan’s third consecutive term grew from nationwide rallies and demonstrations into what became later termed as Velvet Revolution. The demonstrations went far beyond Sargsyan himself to reject the Republican Party-controlled government and to demand the end of systemic corruption, establishing the rule of law and holding elections unmarred by allegations of fraud.

On November 6, 2018, Partnership for Open Society Initiative organized the first public discussion devoted to the necessity of constitutional amendments following the revolution. It gathered members of civil society, independent experts and representatives of political parties participating in snap parliamentary elections. Panelists of the discussion were Vahe Grigoryan, attorney, Artur Sakunts, president of Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor Office, Heriqnaz Tigranyan, Legal adviser at Transparency International Anticorruption Center, Vahan Movsisyan, president of Communities Finance Officers Association and David Amiryan, deputy director for programs at Open Society Foundations-Armenia who moderated the discussion.

Arthur Sakuts drew everyone’s attention to human rights safeguards in the Constitution of 2015. He referred to the document as “an enforced constitution” reminding the participants how the referendum of 2015 was marred by electoral fraud with citizens being unlawfully encouraged, forced or even threatened to vote in favor of the amendments. Civil society, he noted, submitted the analysis of the norms that contradicted the fundamental principles of human rights when the text became public prior to the referendum. But the recommendations were ignored as the referendum was for the continuity of the political elite rather than for meaningful institutional change. The constitutional amendments in 2015 ignored social and economic rights of the citizens, while these were irrevocable rights under the former constitution, Mr Sakunts noted. Citizens’ right to a fair wage no less than the minimum wage and the right to free healthcare became regulated by law, the constitution did not stipulate that the state should secure its citizens’ rights to housing or to social security. Mr Sakunts insisted that there is a need to review and strengthen the constitutional safeguards for the protection of human rights. Referring to the political parties running for the snap parliamentary elections on December 9, he underscored that their campaign should propose a solid solution for the protection of human rights.

Besides human rights, the discussion raised the necessity of revisiting the mechanisms set for the accountability and oversight of constitutional bodies. Heriqnaz Tigranyan emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability, especially for the reduction of corruption risks. She mentioned that together with her colleagues, they submitted recommendations on the text of the constitution before the referendum, focusing in particular on the accountability of public services and the separation of government and public services. Accountability, Ms Tigranyan underscored did not simply mean presenting annual reports or online and TV broadcasting of the hearings, it rather meant securing the transparency of the activities. She recalled that none of those recommendations found place in the constitutions, and, moreover, following the referendum, a series of other legal texts were reviewed to correspond to the changes in the constitution, and notably, a decision was made that the government would hold closed-door hearings and with the decision of the prime minister a certain part of the hearing could be open (to the public and media). The recommendations presented prior to the referendum and the criticisms raised after the revolution was not self-seeking, Ms Tigranyan noted. They aimed to see public accountability, the citizens and their rights in the center of this fundamental document.

Vahe Grigoryan, an attorney, evoked the problem of the functional separation of powers between the three constitutional bodies. He pointed out that the changes made to the fifth article of the constitution (introduction of a new section delineating the separation and balance of powers) did not guarantee the actual independence of all the branches of state power. With the new constitution, the parliamentary majority should form the government, meaning that one political power would control two central power branches. Moreover, while in the former constitution, the president could balance the activities of the three branches, with the amendments of 2015, the country had a prime minister vested with large liabilities and unable to secure the balance between the government and the parliament. The judicial branch could play a stabilizing role only if furnished with the necessary and sufficient functional, structural, material and social independence. Otherwise, the judicial branch would find itself under the influence of the tandem of legislative and executive branches, and referring to the 25-year experience in Armenia, Mr Grigorian noted that the judicial branch had been simply attached to the executive branch. Joining his voice to the raised concerns regarding fundamental rights and the constitution, Mr Grigoryan underscored the importance of securing the balance of the powers as an essential step for ensuring democracy in general and safeguarding human rights of each individual.

Talking about ensuring democracy especially in local self-government, Vahan Movsisyan, brought to the attention of the participants the issue that the constitution did not define the structure and formation of local-self-government. He mentioned that during every constitutional amendment, their organization together with other colleagues had raised this problem, gaining little to no success in this regard. Mr Movsisyan noted that local self-government in Armenia should not be regulated by a separate law but by the constitution, which would eventually define a clear direction aligned with a unified vision for development. Otherwise, with every political decision and change this law could be exposed to different waves of reforms and amendments affecting directly the population. Furthermore, to secure democracy in local self-governance, the constitution should clearly define the mandate and responsibilities of local government councils and mayors. Additionally, he pointed out that the constitutional amendments of 2015 not only overlooked their recommendations regarding the regulations of local-self-government, but stipulated a contradictory statement that mayors should accountable to the local governing councils and not the people who elected them.

The discussion developed around these central issues brought up other underlying problems leading to one general conclusion that amendments to the Constitution of 2015 were unavoidable. The participants were univocal that the changes should not be a political expedient and further measures should be taken to develop the political culture of respect and consensus. The participants agreed that in April and May, the society showed that it had clear expectations from the political forces taking the seats in the parliament. Thus, political parties running for the elections in December should direct their proposed mechanisms and approaches to guarantee the human rights of each individual. In that they would have a historic role of institutionalizing the democratic gains of the revolution, and consolidating the shift in social and political values.