Gevorg Danielyan. The chance of the second round will be enshrined by the Electoral Code
“The parliamentary stable majority in itself is a guarantee of implementation of the public governance and political processes, to which all the countries with rich democratic traditions are inclined in this or that way. The lasting political discrepancies at least should have their solution after the elections and within the reasonably, it is appropriate to give the preference to ensuring the parliamentary stable majority. And to avoid considering and perceiving the stable majority as an uncontrollable political activities, it should necessarily be accompanied by a significant increase in the powers of the parties smaller in number, by immediate broad civic-power circles with civic initiative, etc., with regard to which the Venice Commission experts’ conclusion is positive”, – said member of constitutional reforms experts’ committee, Gevorg Danielyan, presenting the details to Aravot.am after the meeting with the experts of the Venice Commission.
We asked Mr. Danielyan what eventually they agreed on regarding the disputable issues of the stable majority and the second round of parliamentary elections. The Venice Commission, note, mentioned in its conclusion that these issues are desired to be resolved by the electoral code rather than the constitutional norms. Whereas these provisions in the draft of the Constitution submitted by the vocational Commission are the most important ones. After the Venice Commission’s conclusion, the members of the vocational committee were continuing to assert in their interviews that they should remain issues to be regulated by the Constitution.
“The discrepancy, in this case, is around the methods of ensuring stable parliamentary majority and the legal enshrinement thereof. However, it was commonly accepted the stance, according to which the possibility of the second round is enshrined not by the Constitution but by the Electoral Code, particularly, Article 89 of the draft defines that the Electoral Code can determine the institute of the second round. There are no grounds to consider this in the editing dimension, the problem is that thus, the preference is given to introducing more flexible methods of forming a stable parliamentary majority, in particular, the experts’ posture is that the necessity of a second round in this stage of political developments can be not controversial, however, it cannot be considered the only and long-lasting used method.
Read also
According to experts, in some cases, the institute of the “bonus” can be considered legitimate, when the parliamentary force having certain relative majority is granted additional mandates as a bonus, however, it also cannot be considered the only and irreversible method for all times. The political developments further on can dictate other, alternative ways for achieving the mentioned objective, which in the future along with being perceived more acceptable will no longer be deemed inconsistent to the Constitution, hence the Constitution cannot predict and so thoroughly arrange in advance all possible options. Generally, adopting a more flexible system of legal regulation in line with the political developments is legally considered a preferred direction, hence, as a result of the discussions, the mentioned discrepancy received a reasonable solution,” detailed Gevorg Danielyan.
Nelly GRIGORYAN
