Tweet
DIALOGUE AND NEGOTIATIONS
LILIT POGHOSYAN
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on May 23, 2008
Armenia
In response to our questions, KHOSROV HAROUTYUNYAN, Head of the
Christian-Democratic Party of Armenia, presents his assessments on the
efforts of the authorities and the opposition towards the
implementation of Resolution 1609
`Do you think the steps undertaken by the authorities so far are enough
for attending the PACE summer session with `clear conscience'?'
`I do appreciate the authorities' efforts towards the implementation of
Resolution 1609. Nevertheless, the authorities could have acted more
promptly and efficiently in certain matters. For instance, if there are
people among the detainees who were not directly involved in the
criminal offences, I believe they could have changed the precautionary
measure against those people or conducted a speedy judicial inquiry.
This would have essentially reduced the number of the detainees; at the
same time, it would have been useful in terms of a public response.
Of course, certain steps have been undertaken in that direction as
well, but it was possible to act more intensively and in a more
unrestrained manner to prevent the opposition from torpedoing the
political process and heating the situation.'
`Along with the `principal' condition of releasing the `political
detainees', the proponents of Mr. Ter-Petrosyan also speak about
extraordinary presidential or parliamentary elections. Doesn't this
mean that they are trying to solve a problem in terms of torpedoing the
Resolution?'
`Extraordinary presidential and parliamentary elections cannot be a
precondition for any political process. They may result from political
developments and, why not, political dialogues. I don't see the
appropriateness of extraordinary elections, at least at the current
stage. Today, any member of society must be confident that both the
authorities and the opposition share equal responsibility for bringing
the democratic process of life on a normal path.
In this context, the possibility of a dialogue is much discussed, but I
believe it is necessary to distinguish a dialogue from political
negotiations and political consultations. They are different things.
We can say that we follow the regime of a dialogue at present as well.
The President of the Republic, Head of the Government, different
political forces and the opposition are exchanging thoughts with one
another in a direct or indirect manner, through the press, television
and a dialogue with the public. What is left to do is first of all, to
draft the agenda of the political negotiations, i.e. the frameworks of
the principal conceptual issues whose solution is anticipated by the
public, and secondly, to clarify the format of the negotiations. We are
now in the process of searches.
Everybody is beginning to understand it, and that's great because it is
impossible for the state government system to function properly without
the opposition's practical and effective influence. Of course, this
doesn't mean that the opposition should make decisions and impose its
will on the majority. This means that the opposition should have real
chances to influence political decisions in different representative
bodies and first of all, at the National Assembly.'
`What about the Public Chamber under the President? Don't you think it
is capable of solving that problem?'
`The perception of the Public Chamber needs certain clarifications. To
begin with, it cannot be a body replacing the National Assembly. This
approach should be ruled out from the outset. There is an opinion that
different strata of society, public and political organizations should
be represented in that structure. It's just a kind desire. The body
that will function under the President should be vested exclusively
with a consultative role, and what's more, it should serve for the
President. In this case, the staff of the structure should be
determined exclusively by the President of the Republic.
If it is a structure representing a broad specter of political forces,
that specter should be determined by the President again, because the
President may or may not attach importance to the political role of
this or that party in terms of exercising the responsibility vested in
him by the Constitution in amore effective manner. Otherwise, the body
may become the successive stillborn structure.'
LILIT POGHOSYAN
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on May 23, 2008
Armenia
In response to our questions, KHOSROV HAROUTYUNYAN, Head of the
Christian-Democratic Party of Armenia, presents his assessments on the
efforts of the authorities and the opposition towards the
implementation of Resolution 1609
`Do you think the steps undertaken by the authorities so far are enough
for attending the PACE summer session with `clear conscience'?'
`I do appreciate the authorities' efforts towards the implementation of
Resolution 1609. Nevertheless, the authorities could have acted more
promptly and efficiently in certain matters. For instance, if there are
people among the detainees who were not directly involved in the
criminal offences, I believe they could have changed the precautionary
measure against those people or conducted a speedy judicial inquiry.
This would have essentially reduced the number of the detainees; at the
same time, it would have been useful in terms of a public response.
Of course, certain steps have been undertaken in that direction as
well, but it was possible to act more intensively and in a more
unrestrained manner to prevent the opposition from torpedoing the
political process and heating the situation.'
`Along with the `principal' condition of releasing the `political
detainees', the proponents of Mr. Ter-Petrosyan also speak about
extraordinary presidential or parliamentary elections. Doesn't this
mean that they are trying to solve a problem in terms of torpedoing the
Resolution?'
`Extraordinary presidential and parliamentary elections cannot be a
precondition for any political process. They may result from political
developments and, why not, political dialogues. I don't see the
appropriateness of extraordinary elections, at least at the current
stage. Today, any member of society must be confident that both the
authorities and the opposition share equal responsibility for bringing
the democratic process of life on a normal path.
In this context, the possibility of a dialogue is much discussed, but I
believe it is necessary to distinguish a dialogue from political
negotiations and political consultations. They are different things.
We can say that we follow the regime of a dialogue at present as well.
The President of the Republic, Head of the Government, different
political forces and the opposition are exchanging thoughts with one
another in a direct or indirect manner, through the press, television
and a dialogue with the public. What is left to do is first of all, to
draft the agenda of the political negotiations, i.e. the frameworks of
the principal conceptual issues whose solution is anticipated by the
public, and secondly, to clarify the format of the negotiations. We are
now in the process of searches.
Everybody is beginning to understand it, and that's great because it is
impossible for the state government system to function properly without
the opposition's practical and effective influence. Of course, this
doesn't mean that the opposition should make decisions and impose its
will on the majority. This means that the opposition should have real
chances to influence political decisions in different representative
bodies and first of all, at the National Assembly.'
`What about the Public Chamber under the President? Don't you think it
is capable of solving that problem?'
`The perception of the Public Chamber needs certain clarifications. To
begin with, it cannot be a body replacing the National Assembly. This
approach should be ruled out from the outset. There is an opinion that
different strata of society, public and political organizations should
be represented in that structure. It's just a kind desire. The body
that will function under the President should be vested exclusively
with a consultative role, and what's more, it should serve for the
President. In this case, the staff of the structure should be
determined exclusively by the President of the Republic.
If it is a structure representing a broad specter of political forces,
that specter should be determined by the President again, because the
President may or may not attach importance to the political role of
this or that party in terms of exercising the responsibility vested in
him by the Constitution in amore effective manner. Otherwise, the body
may become the successive stillborn structure.'