PoopI have heard on the streets and read on Facebook the same question for dozens of times: “Do we have 2 presidents now?” That question is given by simple people, who follow the evolvements via the internet and, naturally, they are inclined towards believing in only the negative assessments given to our reality. They perhaps really think that Armenia has 2 presidents at the moment . The question is given by also the ones who know the answer very well, but to win the sympathy of the aforementioned simple people they have a need to give that question, to give negative assessments to the authorities and overall, “this country”.
The mentioned 2nd type of people knows that usually some time passes after the presidential elections until his/her inauguration, i.e. the assumption of the office, and in that time the duties of the president is continued to be fulfilled by the former president. This was the case particularly in Armenia, Russia, France and the US: for example, during the shift from Kocharyan to Sargsyan, Medvedev to Putin, Oland to Macron, Obama to Trump. In this case the first persons of the mentioned pairs are commonly called “incumbent president” until the inauguration of the second persons, and the second persons are called “president elect”. In this particular circumstance, the President is Serzh Sargsyan and he will take the presidential duties until April 9, and on April 9, inauguration onwards the same duties will be fulfilled by Armen Sargsyan. Consequently, there are no simultaneously ruling presidents.
This simple, I would say – primitive truth, let me repeat myself, is known to the half of the people discussing the issue of the “two presidents”. However, the topic of the “two presidents” is needed for passing on to other topics – who has been elected and how, have they been elected or not, is he legitimate or not, why the former president is going to become the PM, whether the present or the former president or the PM are good persons or bad, does he “care” about the people or does not, etc. These questions, of course, are legitimate, and here we have a set of issues coming from at least 1995 and in the reality, I think, from the “depth of dozens of years before”.
However, it also seems to me that to discuss these sharp questions it is not needed to fall into a legal ignorance on purpose at all. The opposite, the opposition campaign should be led not from the perspective of nihilism, but the rule of law. Pretending ignorant on purpose is not the best way.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
