In oppositionists’ opinion, the bill passed in the National Assembly on first reading shows that
This week, the Armenian parliament passed the Legal Regime of the State of Emergency bill by a vote of 62 Yeas, 0 Nays and 7 Abstained. According to the bill, the establishment will have the ability to use the army in the internal political processes by the law this time. It was perceived illegal before, not only because it contradicted the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia and the Defense Act, according to which the Republic of Armenia Army is exceptionally to defend the territorial integrity of the Republic of Armenia, the inviolability and security of the state borders, but also because the law did not regulate and did not clarify the functions of the army and armed forces in a state of emergency.
So, Article 9 of the bill passed in the National Assembly on first reading, The Means and Forces Securing the Legal Regime of the State of Emergency, reads, “In order to secure the legal regime of the state of emergency, forces and means of the police, national security and competent state defense bodies can be used,” in order to fulfill the following tasks too, “ceasing the activities of illegal armed groups,” “preventing emergency situations, lowering or eliminating their possible consequences, securing people’s life and health and saving material values” and Article 7, Section 1, Clause 5 of this bill provides for also “restraining or forbidding rallies or other public events.”
It is also mentioned in the bill that servicemen of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia use physical force, special means, weapons and military equipment according to the methods and procedure provided for by the Police Forces Act of the Republic of Armenia. It is obvious that the mentioned regulations are included to suppress the internal political developments and social or political opposition’s protest against the establishment’s actions, particularly given the fact that as March 1 events showed nothing prevents the establishment from representing peaceful protesters as armed people.
Read also
For the sake of justice, one should stress that the Legal Regime of the State of Emergency bill was written by the Cabinet as early as in 2007 and the bill had been systematically put on the parliament sessions’ agenda, then it was “ignored,” edited twice or thrice, only on February 1 put forward in the National Assembly and put on the four-day session’s agenda. By the way, the controversial clause on the use of army and its means in emergency situations has been included in the bill in the past 5 years too. It is understandable, why after “ignoring” the bill for 5 years in the National Assembly, they decided to put it forward and pass now, 2-3 months before the National Assembly election. The Heritage Party MPs also talked about that in the National Assembly. The matter is that not only did involving the army to restrain the opposition and social protest against election fraud after 2008 election cause the March 1 events, the most vulnerable part of the establishment’s actions, but the claims of the Armenian opposition about unacceptability of involving army in internal political processes reached the Constitutional Court and even international arenas, PACE, where a few legislators even made a joint statement in that regard.
Hasn’t the establishment that states about its seeming loyalty to democracy and holding a free and fair election revealed its intentions to rig the election again and to restrain possible massive protests against it by putting forward this bill before the election? Or is this a means for legalizing the army’s participation in the events of March 1, 2008, post factum? In response to these questions of Aravot, Suren Abrahamyan, the former Minister of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Armenia, currently an oppositionist and a member of the Republic Party political council, said, “Both, because even a research carried out by a non-professional would show that after every election, when the people, opposition forces protest, the establishment tries to cover its vulnerable parts with legislation. This is their behavior, to fix previous mistakes, to overcome drawbacks and to prepare for the future election with new tools of restraining possible social protest.”
The former minister said that the fact that this bill contradicts the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia and the current legislation was the other side of the problem, “Such a bill in a country that has gone through March 1, in case of a people that has personally suffered from the brutality of this establishment should have been put forward for general public discussion and not passed in such a rush and by pushing buttons in others’ stead, if, of course, the establishment did not aim at using this bill for evil purposes. However, unfortunately, they discuss such a bill in order to predict the future and to execute discretion while taking action in the future. Anyway, I am convinced that in case of such legal nihilism, one shouldn’t have put forward for discussion such a bill in such a rush and pass it.”
Can passing this bill indicate that the establishment intends or at least doesn’t rule out the option of election fraud during the upcoming election and is preparing to suppress possible massive protests against it by means of the army? “There are too many indicators like that, as many as you like,” said Suren Abrahamyan in response to our question, enumerating facts of not punishing persons, including officials, who were involved and played an active role in the election fraud during previous elections.
Let us observe in addition that neither head of the supervising commission, Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) member Hrayr Karapetyan, nor ARF and Heritage Party MPs raised their voices against this bill – they were either absent or abstained from voting.
NAIRA MAMIKONYAN
