The subject of “Aravot” online Face to Face program is debated by the RPA faction MP Artak Davtyan and Vice-Chairman of “Free Democrats” party Anush Sedrakyan.
Hripsime Jebejyan – Few days are left to the referendum, but a significant segment of the society has not yet decided whether to say “yes” to the constitutional amendments or “no.” What is the main argument that should compel our citizens to say “yes” or “no”?
Anush Sedrakyan – We cannot understand why this issue became so urgent, and why we are in the circular of the greatest rotations of the propaganda machine. Why should we begin voting now, very quickly, without lengthy public debate and without preparatory stages? Maybe I, being a political expert, vote “yes” or “no” and be wrong because all of that is not thoroughly studied yet. I have a question, why so soon. Let them wait after the parliamentary elections, and then put into the agenda to discuss the issue in the presence of more competent parliamentarians. We know that today people are entering the Parliament, to whom the parliamentary environment is alien, have nothing to do with the mental issues and legislation. Why should these parliamentarians discuss an important document like the Constitution? Why should this group represent the people, and all of this should be done in a short period of time? What is the motive? Didn’t the government have another resource for reproduction?
Artak Davtyan – Two-year period is enough for us to be prepared to the constitutional amendments. It is not something new to pop up, our experts for the constitution were well aware of the subject and have presented the draft, which we have. And as to why it is presented, it is the dangers and drawbacks of this system, as well as human rights, fundamental freedoms protection and democracy. The countries that have the model of parliamentary governance are 8 times more than the countries with presidential and semi-presidential governance system.
Read also
H. J. – Mr. Davtyan, you said that this is not for reproduction but for democracy, engineer Sergey Mikayelyan is asking you, why Serzh Sargsyan, in his recent period of tenure, began to show concern about Armenia’s democratization and decided to amend the constitution.
A. D. – Look at the figures of 2012, if by proportional voting RPA has collected a little more than 50%, then by majoritarian voting, the candidates nominated by RPA have collected more than 73 percent. These constitutional amendments shift to the proportional electoral system, in other words, there is no problem of reproduction. If this is your benchmark, then it is possible to ensure it with the current constitution.
A. S. – If the Constitution were aimed at the development of democracy, maybe, I myself would advocate for saying “yes” than even the Republicans. But if the human rights are to be so much protected, then why there is an issue of suspension of rally-revolutionary activity and strangling all possible embryonic movements. I would welcome the constitutional reforms if there were only one point there: to lower the electoral threshold for political parties and public associations making it 1 percent, to allow politically active but not politically trained teams to have the chance to pass to the Parliament.
A. D. – This thresholds is not mentioned in the current and previous Constitution, it is mentioned in the Election Code.
H. J. – Ms. Sedrakyan, Facebook users would like to know, if we were going to say ‘no’ to this constitution, then what was the sense of going to Baghramyan 26?
A. S. – We need to take into account that both presidential candidates and many political forces had gone to Baghramyan 26. Let us not associate it with political positions. In the countries that are more democratic, people meet with the president more often. Unfortunately, the political healthy cooperation balance is broke in our country. Recently, it became known that the reason for all non-amendments of the constitution is the opposition, which is weak. Mr. Davtyan, still 3 months ago I was saying that these reforms can be associated with the extradition of territories, with failure to bear sole responsibility. I was saying with fear, and your MP recently announced that yes, some of the territories should be extradited.
A. D. – Even in the current parliamentary situation, I do not believe that there will be any one of 131 MPs who would vote in favor of diminishing the territories. I do not know who had made such a statement. I can guarantee that there will be no one who will vote for it.
H. J. – To what extent do you believe that the Constitution will operate and will not remain on paper.
A. D. – Both the current Constitution and the one that is offered, I assure you that it is not on the paper and is being implemented. There is no fundamental right in these amendments that is not implemented in the reality.
H. J. – Ms. Sedrakyan, one of the users write whether it is true that your relationships with the leadership of “Free Democrats” party have been recently deteriorated.
A. S. – “Free Democrats” is a liberal and transparent political force. If our relations get worse, the press would be the first to respond. And then, the user forgets that Ms. Sedrakyan is the party leadership, and so far she has no problem with herself. To the point, Mr. Davtyan, people want to see the guarantor of Constitution on social matter, you simply taught them badly. They are interested whether money will be distributed for saying “yes” or not. I am an ordinary citizen and I am interested to know.
A. D. – If it refers to you, then you can be sure that there will be definitely no such offer to you.
Prepared by HRIPSIME JEBEJYAN,
“Aravot” daily
