“It really is a serious issue, which is raised as an issue, i.e. to ensure that the state has such a list. However, we don’t have any clear list of who have been absent from Armenia for more than 180 days at the moment,” Davit Harutyunyan, a member of the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) executive body, said during a conversation with www.aravot.am, commenting on the joint statement of three candidates for president.
The statement reads: “We think that it is necessary to make public the lists of citizens who are absent from the country and are deprived of executing their right to vote, which is a
violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia. We think that the list of Armenian citizens who have been absent from the country for more than 180 days in the past year, but are included in the voter registration lists should be hung in the polling stations separate from the main lists, in order to rule out voting instead of citizens who are absent from the country.”
Davit Harutyunyan also adds that the Election Code includes many provisions that make it possible for all candidates to properly exercise supervision so that no one votes instead of those who are absent from the country – and it doesn’t matter at all whether they have been absent for more than 180 days or don’t come to the polling station on that day only. Therefore, he is convinced that the issue should not be voting instead of citizens who have been absent for 180 days, but to completely rule out voting instead of someone else. “I am sure that the Election Code includes all those guarantees, and one should just execute the rights that are given to any candidate.”
Read also
In response to our observation that the “resource” of voters who were absent from the Republic of Armenia had always been used in favor of the ruling party’s candidate, and there had always been information about that, in particular, during the 2008 election, according to the Armenian National Congress (ANC) and its candidate, that number was roughly 500 thousand, Davit Harutyunyan mentioned the parliamentary election that had taken place in May and reminded that special measures had been taken regarding the subject matter at that time. “The Election Code provided for a set of serious supervisory mechanisms, in order that no such thing happened, and anyone who made such an accusation, including you, was able to mention at least one such fact.”
Our interlocutor reminds that an unprecedented step was taken when a set of parties applied to the government, and the government agreed to open the border control database for the parties participating in the election. “If there had been such facts, I assure you that at least a few parties, I assume, would have had some examples of that, having poll-watchers in all polling stations and being able to check those data. Parties participating in the election sent their representatives who went through a special training on how one should use that database. And although everyone had a separate workplace, no party seized that opportunity after the election. That means that there had been no such case. In any event, no one has raised such an issue so far.”
As for candidates’ taking a “public oath” not to use the administrative resource, our interlocutor agrees that the administrative resource should not be used. “I understand that opposition candidates should always talk about this issue, exploiting, I think, that issue in some cases. However, the question raised is fully acceptable for me, and if anyone takes such a step, it is very well that candidates should immediately inform to which, I assure you, there will be a proper response.”
However, he explains that the phrase “use of the administrative resource” is often presented in a wrong way in our country. In particular, in our interlocutor’s opinion, the issue is that a minister or another official is engaged in partisan propaganda in parallel with his official duties, and in this sense, “many accusations that are made are not always grounded.”
Nelly GRIGORYAN
