May 1995. Freedom Square. Speaking at the NDU Board member, NA MP Seyran Avagyan delivers a speech. I cannot quote verbatim, but the meaning is as follows: it’s not enough that Levon and his gang have looted the country for four years, now Levon wants to enshrine royal powers for him by despotic Constitution. The rally ended with a march. Several hundreds of people walk along Mashtots Avenue, Amiryan and Abovyan Streets and return to the square. The demonstrators are chanting: “Erase Yes, erase yes.” (Incidentally, I do not recommend to follow this call on this Sunday and delete anything, in this case, your ballot paper will be declared invalid. In this case, you should mark next to “Yes” or “No”).
In 1995, in the promotional period preceding the adoption of the Constitution, Ara Galoyan and I were the presenters of a debating program, which was attended by the supporters of “Yes” Ara Sahakyan and Vardan Khachatryan and the supporter of the “No”, Communist Leonid Hakobyan. There were more participants, whom, unfortunately, I cannot remember. Leonid Hakobyan assured that the adopted Constitution enshrines the principles of wild capitalism, and people are deprived of free education and health care. As we were leaving the territory of the television station, a short-size police officer with a mustache told us, “I am going to say no to this “Yes,” to which, naturally, Ara and I replied that it is his right.
Why do I recall all this twenty years later? Just to confirm that everything is repeated. “Yes” is “Yes,” not only because its preachers like the draft constitution but because it is necessary to some political forces and their leaders. “No” is “No” not because there are unacceptable clauses in the draft but because people are dissatisfied with their social status. In fact, allegations from the fantasy genre appear next to the true and serious arguments in the “No” campaign twenty years ago and now. Recently, for example, a citizen asked me in all seriousness whether it is true that by the new Constitution, the power is transferred by inheritance. And another citizen in the same seriousness was curious whether it is true that the new Constitution allows homosexual marriages. All these are fragments of the “No” campaign. The campaigners know very well that no one from their audience will read the text of the draft Constitution, and “tune” their imagination and point out even the non-existent articles of the draft. Such nonsense overshadows rational arguments. For example, the strongly vulnerable clause of the second round of the elections and “stable majority” actually found in the draft Constitution, in favor of which, the supporters of ‘Yes’ do not have any serious argument.
Most importantly that twenty years ago and today, everyone knows what will be the outcome of the referendum, and how indifferent is our population towards this whole debate. “Constitution is something abstract and the people are not interested in it,” said Vano Siradeghyan to me in the night of July 4, 1995.
Read also
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
