The easiest option of political activity is to demand the president’s resignation and extraordinary elections. In that case, you do not cause yourself a trouble of entering into contextual discussions and debates on any matter, it suffices to make an ardent speech, stating, let’s say, the poverty rate and emigration, and to conclude that the only way out is the early change of the government.
The easiest option in constitutional amendments is not to discuss any text and to say, “since the recommendations contribute to the reproduction of the government, it is useless to talk about them.” As it was said before, I have not read it, but I condemn it. It can also so to speak “use a swearword” – he who discusses it is “a regime servant.” Well, and he who finds something positive in the proposed project… I will not say who he is.
Such manifestations of infantilism, indeed, are advantageous to the government because thereby, the opposition members are sending negative, I would say even desperate signals to their electorate; if there would be no change of the government, then nothing good will happen. This thesis makes the citizens get into a deep depression over years and decades because no regime change happens and the frustrated people either migrate or are isolated from social life.
For the given case, I think that the political forces should iterate not common formulas repeated for 25 years, but to struggle against the truly dangerous and controversial theses of the draft of the Constitution. Such thesis, it seems to me, is the aspiration to have the “stable majority” in the Parliament at all costs, which is available in this draft. Since it can be assumed which party, most likely, will gain this majority, then there can be doubts that thus the foundation of an autocratic government us established by the method of holding “the second round” and increasing the number of MPs. The authors of the draft should disperse these doubts not by words but by bringing the example of other countries and eliminating the principle of “stable majority”. The party that collected more votes, if it does not have the absolute majority, it should be able to negotiation with the parties that have passed to the parliament with the aim to form coalitions. Yes, there might be “bargaining” and blackmail, but no one can impose a coalition: if the political parties do not reach agreement, then it is necessary to hold new elections rather than a “second round.”
Read also
Certainly, there might be principal opponents of the parliamentary system in Armenia currently (I am one of them), but this does not mean that given draft should not be become a subject for discussion for the given case. We must strive for the best with the possibility. Because the politics is an art of the possibility. And not only the politics.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
