Tweet
THE LAST REFUGE OF LEADERS
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments25779.html
Published: 15:15:51 - 11/04/2012
The April 11 meeting of the joint election monitoring headquarters
had some unexpected developments. The vice president of Heritage
Party Ruben Hakobyan proposed that the agreement on constituting the
headquarters be signed by the leaders of the parties, as well as create
a commission to deal with election bribes in the guise of charity.
Heritage proposal was refused. Vartan Oskanian, Prosperous Armenia,
said he does not think the party leaders should necessarily sign.
Levon Zurabyan, Armenian National Congress, noted that if they
participate in the meeting, it means they are authorized.
This is a little strange since agreements between states are signed
by different officials, such as foreign ministers who are certainly
authorized by their president.
Four political parties are not a state but they have assumed a very
important and useful mission for the state - to monitor the forthcoming
parliamentary elections. For maximum legitimacy and responsibility
of this mission, the signing of the agreement by the party leaders
is logical.
Let the leaders of four parties publicly assume responsibility for
the headquarters, then authorize their delegates to take part in
current activities and discuss the mechanisms of control.
Why do some party leaders refuse to sign the agreement and raise the
status of the headquarters? Do they think that the joint headquarters
is just part of their plan and is not a means of controlling the
legitimacy of the elections? Hence, it is logical that the political
leaders avoid signing the agreement personally to avoid further
responsibility and to be able to maneuver when the party starts making
donations or offering election bribes, or as it usually happens,
enter into a deal or dialogue with the government.
It is especially important for the PAP since this party, besides
the arithmetical difference of government levers, does not differ
from the RPA. In this case, the important thing is Gagik Tsarukyan's
responsibility for the PAP behavior.
In the meantime, if the leaders do not sign, they will always have the
option of referring to the party's representative who allegedly signed
the covenant without discussing it with the party and its leader.
For instance, when Vartan Oskanian stated that the coalition is
something artificial, Prosperous Armenia to which he belongs stated
that he had expressed his personal opinion as a political expert. So
there is no confidence that tomorrow the parties will not make
similar statements that Oskanian, for example, signed the covenant
as an individual.
Or, for example, the leader of the Armenian National Congress Levon
Ter-Petrosyan, speaking about their cooperation with the Prosperous
Armenia, noted that it is not the Congress' opinion but his own. Now
it is interesting to know what Levon Zurabyan presents, Ter-Petrosyan's
personal opinion or the Congress' official position.
It will open the arena for the political forces to maneuver, so the
Heritage proposal is quite logical and proceeds from the logic of
the most important mission to make sure that the activities of the
headquarters are supported by strong guarantees later not to avoid
responsibility easily.
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments25779.html
Published: 15:15:51 - 11/04/2012
The April 11 meeting of the joint election monitoring headquarters
had some unexpected developments. The vice president of Heritage
Party Ruben Hakobyan proposed that the agreement on constituting the
headquarters be signed by the leaders of the parties, as well as create
a commission to deal with election bribes in the guise of charity.
Heritage proposal was refused. Vartan Oskanian, Prosperous Armenia,
said he does not think the party leaders should necessarily sign.
Levon Zurabyan, Armenian National Congress, noted that if they
participate in the meeting, it means they are authorized.
This is a little strange since agreements between states are signed
by different officials, such as foreign ministers who are certainly
authorized by their president.
Four political parties are not a state but they have assumed a very
important and useful mission for the state - to monitor the forthcoming
parliamentary elections. For maximum legitimacy and responsibility
of this mission, the signing of the agreement by the party leaders
is logical.
Let the leaders of four parties publicly assume responsibility for
the headquarters, then authorize their delegates to take part in
current activities and discuss the mechanisms of control.
Why do some party leaders refuse to sign the agreement and raise the
status of the headquarters? Do they think that the joint headquarters
is just part of their plan and is not a means of controlling the
legitimacy of the elections? Hence, it is logical that the political
leaders avoid signing the agreement personally to avoid further
responsibility and to be able to maneuver when the party starts making
donations or offering election bribes, or as it usually happens,
enter into a deal or dialogue with the government.
It is especially important for the PAP since this party, besides
the arithmetical difference of government levers, does not differ
from the RPA. In this case, the important thing is Gagik Tsarukyan's
responsibility for the PAP behavior.
In the meantime, if the leaders do not sign, they will always have the
option of referring to the party's representative who allegedly signed
the covenant without discussing it with the party and its leader.
For instance, when Vartan Oskanian stated that the coalition is
something artificial, Prosperous Armenia to which he belongs stated
that he had expressed his personal opinion as a political expert. So
there is no confidence that tomorrow the parties will not make
similar statements that Oskanian, for example, signed the covenant
as an individual.
Or, for example, the leader of the Armenian National Congress Levon
Ter-Petrosyan, speaking about their cooperation with the Prosperous
Armenia, noted that it is not the Congress' opinion but his own. Now
it is interesting to know what Levon Zurabyan presents, Ter-Petrosyan's
personal opinion or the Congress' official position.
It will open the arena for the political forces to maneuver, so the
Heritage proposal is quite logical and proceeds from the logic of
the most important mission to make sure that the activities of the
headquarters are supported by strong guarantees later not to avoid
responsibility easily.