Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan today chaired a sitting of the Professional Committee on Constitutional Reform, which was held in the Office of Government.
The Premier addressed the meeting with opening remarks, in which he stated: “The Constitutional Reform Commission has been operating for a long time, and I must admit that I am one of those people who do not think that the country’s constitutions should be changed frequently. But I must also say that especially in this period I have come to the conclusion that we not only need to make constitutional changes, but we need to adopt a new Constitution de jure.
Constitutional changes or reforms are usually adopted through political considerations; in any case, we have such experience, and a great role in political expediency is played by specific texts, mechanisms, bringing a specific circle of people into line. Perhaps, this very perception has caused specific problems for us, but I am convinced that we have not a political necessity to change the Constitution, but a nationwide state imperative to adopt a new Constitution.
A few days ago, I addressed this issue in a different context, and now I think it is an opportunity to address this issue. When I delve into many problems in my capacity of Prime Minister, I inevitably record that there is no organic connection between the state order and citizen’s will in our country.
Very often as we state that law, legality, and public order are not properly formulated in public perception, one of the reasons for this may be that the state order has no organic connection with the will of the citizen. I think that an important reason is that we did not have such a constitution or constitutional reform in the history of the Third Republic implying that citizens should consider themselves participants in the constitutional process. And this is the main conceptual, philosophical and substantive problem we are facing in reality. Accordingly, it is crucial for us to set up an organic link between the state system and the will of the citizen and the nation as a whole. This is the most important task that is set before us: the citizens of Armenia should make sure that the Constitution is theirs.”
Nikol Pashinyan referred to the perceptions formed with regard to constitution: “In Soviet times people used to believe that there was a Stalinist constitution, a Brezhnev constitution, which in turn were associated with concrete individuals, political groups, and their collective ideas about the future. Unfortunately, this trend continued after Armenia’s independence, and the texts of constitution – directly or indirectly, a little more or a little less – used to be associated with individuals, political groups, and their respective ideas about the future.
Today we have the opportunity to break this chain. When discussing we realized that today we really have such an opportunity, because although the Commission was formed in accordance with the Prime Minister’s decision, there are very few people in the commission who have a political connection with me or our political team
While we have very sad traditions in the Republic of Armenia about making constitutional changes or making political statements at some point and sticking to them, I really want to say that I consider myself to be the guarantor of that process. After all, I have come to the conclusion that our state problems can be solved, or the fact that the state order was formed through the expression of citizens’ will plays a key role in that solution.
Of course, the Constitution is a very complex system, it is clear that very serious professional work must be done there, but I think that in order to bolster this process, the professional commission should launch a process of public discussions as soon as possible so that people could get acquainted with the vision and views of the Commission, the Government, the political majority and the opposition, understand what the debate is about, where it comes from, and whether the process of adopting the constitution may tie the ring between the state and the citizen.
Of course, it is very important here that the position of the government or the political majority cannot but have a specific “direct influence” because the government and the political majority also have a relevant mandate and authority from the people. I would like to state again that our opinion is that we should not change the system of government.
Indeed, the parliamentary system of government must still be established in Armenia, to be honest, we even have to understand what we mean by a parliamentary system of government. Do we consider what we have today to be a full-fledged parliamentary system of government, are the mechanisms of parliamentary oversight sufficiently developed, or do we want to further develop the mechanisms of parliamentary oversight?
The next issue that has been the subject of much more political debate is the issue of a stable majority in the current Constitution, and the issue actually has two sides. On the one hand, this provides an opportunity for the opposition to have a broader representation in parliament, but on the other hand, it should also take into account the criticism that the institution of a stable majority somewhat deforms the direct expression of the will of the electorate on the distribution of parliamentary seats.
On the other hand, today we see in many countries when the direct expression of the will of the electorate does not allow to form a majority, and the countries are forced to go to new snap elections, knowing in advance that the voters’ will is unlikely to undergo significant changes in a couple of months.
Today we can see that sometimes elections do not lead to the formation of a parliamentary majority. An extraordinary election takes place, which almost accurately reflects the results of the previous election, which again necessitates new elections or the formation of a minority government. In fact, it carries the political message of the need for new elections. This is a matter of political choice: do we want there to be as many elections in our country as possible, or do we want to keep this issue at a certain, more or less predictable level?
The next important issue that I would like to address is the provision of more comfortable conditions for foreign investment and investors in the Constitution. This issue mainly relates to a situation when the judiciary in countries like ours does not enjoy much trust in terms of investment protection and in general in terms of protection of rights.
We have been analyzing and discussing in parliament and on various platforms issues related to foreign investments, but let us look at our realities through the eyes of a foreign investor. One of the first questions a foreign investor wants to ask is what is the status of the judiciary in that country?
The idea that the judiciary does not have enough credibility and sufficient independence is the leitmotiv of many international reports relating to our country. Therefore, in addition to the other risks that may not be so manageable for the government – I mean the macro-environment, regional developments, etc. – the judiciary is a serious factor that becomes an impediment to foreign investments.
But, on the other hand, at least in terms of the international situation, even with the most optimistic estimates, we cannot create such a judicial system in a few years that will have the required credibility resource for foreign investors. And in this sense, since these signals are constantly coming from investors, it would be right for us to think about the existence of alternative mechanisms for protecting foreign investment.
And finally, the last topic that I would like to address is the availability of an independent judiciary. In this regard, I know that the Commission has for a while now been discussing the need to have a unified judicial system, taking into account the “common judicial system” and the constitutional judicial system. To put it bluntly, the functions of the Constitutional Court and the functions of the common judicial system, the functions of the Court of Cassation should be merged in a single system.
Frankly speaking, I do believe that this topic deserves serious discussion, because we have often witnessed some rift between the approaches of the Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation, which to my mind cannot have a positive impact on the development of our judicial system.”
The Prime Minister noted that all these issues have a very important professional component. “My understanding is that we should send political messages to the Professional Commission, get heir feedback on this political issue, review the opinions formulated through the professional filter, re-evaluate our views and make a decision. I think it is not realistic to expect that we will reach a consensus on the matter at hand even within the legal circles which lack the political component. Nevertheless, one thing can be stated in advance:
a. The use of different forms of electoral fraud or other tools in adopting a constitution or in any electoral process should be ruled out in Armenia.
b. After all, it is up to the people to make a decision, and in order to have it serve our primary purpose, we must do our best to raise the public’s awareness of the ongoing debate.”
The Prime Minister next touched on the electoral process: “We need to think about having technological alternatives to the electoral system in Armenia. In fact, we failed to hold a referendum due to COVID-19. But considering that the coronavirus-related threats may stand for a long time ahead not only in Armenia but all over the world, we need to think about whether we can have a reliable online voting system, the results of which will be as accurate as the results of Armenia’s latest parliamentary elections, for example.
I think we should look at it not only as an electoral issue. It is, in fact, a matter of national security. If it suddenly turns out that we have restrictions due to the epidemic in terms of holding a regular voting, it will be a big problem and a violation of citizens’ rights. Because, even if we say it has nothing to do with the epidemic, we make choices, presumably many citizens, fearing that they may become infected with this or that disease by participating in the event, may simply be de facto deprived of the opportunity to exercise their civil rights.
This is a question that we should at least take into consideration and draw relevant conclusions. Indeed, it is not directly related to Constitutional Reform Commission’s proceedings, but on the other hand, the Commission can consider such opportunities or provide specific guidelines and formulations that will facilitate the decision-making process,” the Prime Minister noted.
Reporting back the results of the activities carried out in 2020, Chairman of the Professional Committee on Constitutional Reforms Yeghishe Kirakosyan noted that the discussions had been held remotely due to COVID-19. He stressed that detailed discussions were held on key issues raised by the Prime Minister, under the logic of restoring civil-state institutions to organic communication.
Issues of cooperation with international partners and consulting assistance were discussed during the meeting. The Commission continues active discussions on the proposed agenda; A finalized concept based on public discussions is expected by this yearend. A draft of constitutional amendments will be out by June, 2021.
The commission members described the ongoing discussions as quite effective and came up with their own observations and recommendations. They agreed that the constitutional reforms should be carried out with the logic of restoring the civil-state order of organic communication, guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary, transparency in electoral processes and other fundamental approaches. The need for ensuring maximum transparency in public discussions was emphasized during the meeting.
Prime Minister Pashinyan welcomed the good working atmosphere, thanked the commission members for the work done so far and wished the panel every success in further activities.
Mr. Karen Zadoyan, a member of the Professional Committee on Constitutional Reforms and President of the Armenian Lawyers’ Association, also presented his observations to the Prime Minister. In the interview with Iravaban.net, he said that at present constitutional legitimacy is the most important issue, which will be resolved as a result of inclusive discussions with citizens and will result in the adoption of the new Constitution.
“One of the most important issues is the final election of the parliamentary or presidential administration as a result of accessible and inclusive discussions with citizens. The next major task is to have a reliable, efficient and independent judiciary, in which the commission is currently discussing the merger of two supreme bodies, the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation in the institutional structure of one supreme body – the Supreme Court.
One of the most important tasks is to envisage an independent constitutional body among the anti-corruption body(ies) and to provide appropriate constitutional guarantees so that the existing political forces do not have any legal leverage to influence the activities of the anti-corruption body(ies). It is also very important that the Constitution envisages direct democratic tools to ensure the inclusive and effective participation of citizens in the adoption of the most important public and political decisions,” Karen Zadoyan said.