According to the National Assembly regulation law, it is planned that not only the representatives of the government but also the representatives of the opposition occupy positions in the parliament. It follows from the fundamental principles of a democratic state, according to which state structures can work effectively only when the views of the minority are also taken into account.
If we imagine the ideal situation when the government changes through elections (not a palace coup or revolution), then when this mechanism works, political forces constantly rotate at the helm of power. Especially from the point of view of the Anglo-American political tradition, the parliamentary majority and the opposition are the most important pillars of the state, and state structures regularly rely on one of them.
However, in countries like Armenia, people come and sit in the seats of power with the intention of ruling forever, and legally removing them from those seats becomes an almost impossible task. That situation dictates the behavior of both the government and the opposition. They feel not as part of a unified system but as enemy camps bent on destroying each other. It is also clear that with such a worldview, it is intolerable for the government that the representatives of the parliamentary minority occupy any position in the National Assembly.
To the patterns specific to anti-democratic regimes are added the personal characteristics of our rulers (first of all, of course, the prime minister): the sick desire to establish oneself, the unique ambitions of immature people, and petty revenge. Pashinyan was ready to hold a nationwide referendum to depose Hrayr Tovmasyan, and I attribute the order to pursue Armen Ashotyan to similar outbursts of anger. Taguhi Tovmasyan, the former representative of “My step,” should also be punished for “betrayal.”
Read also
These are the “general” and “local” reasons for suspending the powers of the NA Standing Committee on Human Rights Protection and Public Affairs Chairman. The justifications for that process were similar to the rest of the “arguments” of the Civil Contract members; for example, that Oskanian is to blame for their disastrous diplomatic failures.
By the way, Taguhi Tovmasyan’s activity in the National Assembly of this convocation is close to the “classic”; that is, it is aimed at the most constructive dialogue. Maybe that also annoys the “uppers”?
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
