The Armenian Constitution was ratified in 1995 and amended in 2005 and 2015. Those who initiated its ratification and amendments were, respectively, the first, second, and third presidents, for whom experts shaped the law of the land “to suit them.”
The fourth leader of Armenia decided not to stay behind his predecessors, and he initiated the fourth amended constitution that will once again return to the semi-presidential format. That will enable him to:
A. Govern for at least another 10 years.
B. Get rid of President Armen Sarkissian, who sometimes doesn’t follow his “orders.”
Read also
In reality, it doesn’t matter if the system of government in Armenia is referred to as presidential, semi-presidential, parliamentary, or even a constitutional monarchy; its essence does not change. In all cases, everything in this country depends on one person, the parliament simply plays a symbolic role, pro-government oligarchs receive privileges, law enforcement bodies carry out the head of state’s will and orders, political parties (both ruling and opposition) remain unstable, and the army of subordinates praise the wisdom of the “king.”
If this were the case during only one or two of Armenia’s four leaders’ administrations, I perhaps would have thought that these were the personal characteristics of those leaders. If this were the case in one of the three systems of government we’ve “experienced,” I would have thought that it were due to the system. But since the same thing happened during all administrations and systems over the past 30 years, I believe that the issue is much deeper. For example, the current system, in essence, does not allow the government to remove a Prime Minister who led the country to a humiliating defeat. But would it have been possible if he were the president or “semi-president?”
The same goes for “legitimacy” as well. For the most part, that is simply a word or paper. The former authorities had that paper without earning that right, but the current authorities earned it. What did that change? Did the situation become more stable? Is the societal and psychological legitimacy of the current authorities higher than the Republican Party’s? If snap elections were to take place tomorrow, My Step or another party were to win fair and square, and they were to begin waving the “legitimacy” paper (“We are the people’s government”), will tensions among society ease?
The issue, therefore, is not so much the systems, leaders, or today’s legitimacy as much as it is society. We must think about overcoming the divisions in society.
Going back to the law of the land, I must agree with the President of Russia here who once said, “The constitution doesn’t need to change; brains do.” Yes, Putin did change the constitution years after saying that in a way that suited him.
Aram Abrahamyan
