Tweet
OPPOSITION WANTS, AUTHORITIES REFUSE
Lilit Poghosyan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
23 Oct 2008
Armenia
Below we present some interesting episodes from yesterday's "heated"
parliamentary debate over the changes envisaging a broader scope of
competences for the opposition.
ARMEN MARTIROSYAN
Head of "Heritage" faction
"The authorities need a counterbalance on the political arena. And
that role should be vested in the opposition. The Government
is actually making all the steps which it is required to. The
opposition should be vested with the competences that imply supervisory
functions. In particular, the Parliament may have committees dealing
with financial-credit and budgetary affairs, defense issues, human
rights etc.
The Government brings the Budget to the Parliament, receives the
approval of the document and executes it. The opposition should
be responsible for supervising the Budget. The Supervisory Chamber
should be headed by a representative of the opposition. The Head and
the members of the National Committee on Television and Radio should
also be representatives of the opposition.
The Head of the Central Election Commission should also be a
pro-opposition figure, because no matter how much the opposition
may desire to falsify the election results, it can't do that as it
doesn't have relevant resources. The resources are in the hands of
the authorities."
HAKOB HAKOBYAN
RPA Faction
"There can't be pro-opposition authorities or a pro-government
opposition. By trying to involve the human resources of the
pro-opposition parties in the state government system we eliminate
rather than assist the opposition. If we give positions to all the
members of 'Heritage' party" a question will arise as to whether
"Heritage" is a pro-government or a pro-opposition faction. In this
way, we'll mix up everything.
I have been against the idea from the outset and continue saying that
we have chosen the option of setting up a parliament and forming a
government through elections, and any attempt of deviating from this
path is unconstitutional.
A party may be a pro-opposition faction during and after the campaign
or before it. If a party which represented the opposition during
the campaign participates in the formation of the Government after
the elections, and its program is included in the program of the
Government, how can it be a pro-opposition party? Should we enlarge
the resources of the opposition? Of course, we should. Should we
strengthen it? Sure, but not in that way. This is not the way of
strengthening the opposition. By doing so, we will only suppress it.
Lilit Poghosyan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
23 Oct 2008
Armenia
Below we present some interesting episodes from yesterday's "heated"
parliamentary debate over the changes envisaging a broader scope of
competences for the opposition.
ARMEN MARTIROSYAN
Head of "Heritage" faction
"The authorities need a counterbalance on the political arena. And
that role should be vested in the opposition. The Government
is actually making all the steps which it is required to. The
opposition should be vested with the competences that imply supervisory
functions. In particular, the Parliament may have committees dealing
with financial-credit and budgetary affairs, defense issues, human
rights etc.
The Government brings the Budget to the Parliament, receives the
approval of the document and executes it. The opposition should
be responsible for supervising the Budget. The Supervisory Chamber
should be headed by a representative of the opposition. The Head and
the members of the National Committee on Television and Radio should
also be representatives of the opposition.
The Head of the Central Election Commission should also be a
pro-opposition figure, because no matter how much the opposition
may desire to falsify the election results, it can't do that as it
doesn't have relevant resources. The resources are in the hands of
the authorities."
HAKOB HAKOBYAN
RPA Faction
"There can't be pro-opposition authorities or a pro-government
opposition. By trying to involve the human resources of the
pro-opposition parties in the state government system we eliminate
rather than assist the opposition. If we give positions to all the
members of 'Heritage' party" a question will arise as to whether
"Heritage" is a pro-government or a pro-opposition faction. In this
way, we'll mix up everything.
I have been against the idea from the outset and continue saying that
we have chosen the option of setting up a parliament and forming a
government through elections, and any attempt of deviating from this
path is unconstitutional.
A party may be a pro-opposition faction during and after the campaign
or before it. If a party which represented the opposition during
the campaign participates in the formation of the Government after
the elections, and its program is included in the program of the
Government, how can it be a pro-opposition party? Should we enlarge
the resources of the opposition? Of course, we should. Should we
strengthen it? Sure, but not in that way. This is not the way of
strengthening the opposition. By doing so, we will only suppress it.