Tweet
PUBLIC PALACE CAN'T BE "POCKET"
Gevorg Harutyunyan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on July 18, 2008
Armenia
Interview with the Chairman of Armenian Sociologists' Association
Gevorg Poghosyan
"Mr. Poghosyan is there any necessity to form a Public Palace in
Armenia?"
"We are even late we need this Public Palace for a long time. Two
years back in the book, co-authored by me, a separate section was
devoted to the creation of similar public structure.
But in our view the structure was different from the one they speak
about.
Our state aims to be democratic. By classical approach, there should be
state, private and social sectors in democratic countries. The social
sector or the civil society is very weak in our country. The same is
in all the post-soviet countries. Everyone knows this. The creation
of the Public Palace is very important for making this sector stronger.
We have more than four thousand working Social Organizations, but
they failed to create strong unions. There are independent Mass Media,
but they play no public role, they are not influential.
We need strong institutes for the formation of civil society and
to make the citizens active. The Public Palace is the embodiment
of that strong structure. It is one step to make the social sector
stronger. And it is very good that we finally took this step."
"Why is th e creation of the Public Palace considered the consequence
of the post-election developments?"
"Now when they speak about the Public Palace they mix three different
things. The version that I have introduced is the classical and
theoretical form of making the social sector stronger. But because
at the moment we are facing post-election conflict, and there is a
necessity for government-opposition dialogue, some people think that
Public Palace can implement this function. The settlement of similar
issues is not in the competencies of the Public Palace.
After all each high-ranking official: the President, the Prime
Minister, Speaker of the National Assembly can form consultative
bodies. But they are not Public Palaces. Of Course it would be good if
the President had similar consultative body, to have real and complete
information. It is well known all over the world that by the help of
the Ministers, Assistants and the Advisers the leader of the country
gets information. They say there are certain things, which is better
to hide from the "boss". The President can include his preferable
people in this body. Those with whom he considers appropriate to work.
The Public Palace that we have proposed to create can't be "pocket". It
must be really public. It should not be attached to the President. It
should be an independent political institute. I believe it is possible
to have similar institute only by the force of law. There should be
a law about the Public Palace, which will emphasize the competencies
of this body and will clarify the restrictions.
The Public Palace can't replace the Parliament. But some people say,
because not all the layers of society are represented in the National
Assembly, we must create the Public Palace. It is impossible to
replace the legislative body by the public one. The Public Palace
can't be a place for dispute and rivalry between the ruling power
and the opposition.
Everything is mixed because we have a wrong picture about the Public
Palace."
"It is understandable that the Public Palace won't pass laws and
won't take mandatory regulations. What is the result of the activity
of this body?"
"Despite the quality of the activity of the Human Rights Defender it
is wonderful that this institute is finally formed in our country. The
civilians have got one more body to defend them. The Public Palace
is going to be a social ombudsman to defend the interests of the
society. It must be the collective conscience of the nation.
The public, the people can raise any issue by means of the Public
Palace. It is the voice of the conscience and no one can ignore it. But
we need a law to make the voice of the Public Palace heard. Otherwise
this body will also turn into a regular overlooked structure.
I wo uld love to see the representatives of the Public Palace in the
National Assembly, in the government, to have the right to participate
in the discussions without the right to vote. Thus we could ensure the
contact of the society with the legislative and executive bodies. In
my view it is very important for the representatives of different
provinces to be represented in the Public Palace, including Karabakh
and Diaspora: at least some big communities. This way it is possible
to create a wonderful civil palace.
This structure must be financed by the budget, by a separate line. Not
for the salaries of the members (because they must be volunteers) but
for investigations, discussions, analysis, etc. The Public TV must
allocate certain airtime to the Public Palace envisaged by the law,
without any interference or willfulness."
Gevorg Harutyunyan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on July 18, 2008
Armenia
Interview with the Chairman of Armenian Sociologists' Association
Gevorg Poghosyan
"Mr. Poghosyan is there any necessity to form a Public Palace in
Armenia?"
"We are even late we need this Public Palace for a long time. Two
years back in the book, co-authored by me, a separate section was
devoted to the creation of similar public structure.
But in our view the structure was different from the one they speak
about.
Our state aims to be democratic. By classical approach, there should be
state, private and social sectors in democratic countries. The social
sector or the civil society is very weak in our country. The same is
in all the post-soviet countries. Everyone knows this. The creation
of the Public Palace is very important for making this sector stronger.
We have more than four thousand working Social Organizations, but
they failed to create strong unions. There are independent Mass Media,
but they play no public role, they are not influential.
We need strong institutes for the formation of civil society and
to make the citizens active. The Public Palace is the embodiment
of that strong structure. It is one step to make the social sector
stronger. And it is very good that we finally took this step."
"Why is th e creation of the Public Palace considered the consequence
of the post-election developments?"
"Now when they speak about the Public Palace they mix three different
things. The version that I have introduced is the classical and
theoretical form of making the social sector stronger. But because
at the moment we are facing post-election conflict, and there is a
necessity for government-opposition dialogue, some people think that
Public Palace can implement this function. The settlement of similar
issues is not in the competencies of the Public Palace.
After all each high-ranking official: the President, the Prime
Minister, Speaker of the National Assembly can form consultative
bodies. But they are not Public Palaces. Of Course it would be good if
the President had similar consultative body, to have real and complete
information. It is well known all over the world that by the help of
the Ministers, Assistants and the Advisers the leader of the country
gets information. They say there are certain things, which is better
to hide from the "boss". The President can include his preferable
people in this body. Those with whom he considers appropriate to work.
The Public Palace that we have proposed to create can't be "pocket". It
must be really public. It should not be attached to the President. It
should be an independent political institute. I believe it is possible
to have similar institute only by the force of law. There should be
a law about the Public Palace, which will emphasize the competencies
of this body and will clarify the restrictions.
The Public Palace can't replace the Parliament. But some people say,
because not all the layers of society are represented in the National
Assembly, we must create the Public Palace. It is impossible to
replace the legislative body by the public one. The Public Palace
can't be a place for dispute and rivalry between the ruling power
and the opposition.
Everything is mixed because we have a wrong picture about the Public
Palace."
"It is understandable that the Public Palace won't pass laws and
won't take mandatory regulations. What is the result of the activity
of this body?"
"Despite the quality of the activity of the Human Rights Defender it
is wonderful that this institute is finally formed in our country. The
civilians have got one more body to defend them. The Public Palace
is going to be a social ombudsman to defend the interests of the
society. It must be the collective conscience of the nation.
The public, the people can raise any issue by means of the Public
Palace. It is the voice of the conscience and no one can ignore it. But
we need a law to make the voice of the Public Palace heard. Otherwise
this body will also turn into a regular overlooked structure.
I wo uld love to see the representatives of the Public Palace in the
National Assembly, in the government, to have the right to participate
in the discussions without the right to vote. Thus we could ensure the
contact of the society with the legislative and executive bodies. In
my view it is very important for the representatives of different
provinces to be represented in the Public Palace, including Karabakh
and Diaspora: at least some big communities. This way it is possible
to create a wonderful civil palace.
This structure must be financed by the budget, by a separate line. Not
for the salaries of the members (because they must be volunteers) but
for investigations, discussions, analysis, etc. The Public TV must
allocate certain airtime to the Public Palace envisaged by the law,
without any interference or willfulness."