Tweet
WHY IS LAW ON STATE OF EMERGENCY ADOPTED AHEAD OF ELECTIONS?
epress.am
02.24.2012
Under no circumstances should the army become a tool in issues of
domestic politics. Every country should have a law on the rule of
law during a state of emergency, but the way in which the government
brought this law to the National Assembly was unacceptable, head of
the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun, or ARF-D)
parliamentary faction Vahan Hovhannisyan told journalists in the
capital today.
"There's a provision in the RA draft law on the rule of law during
a state of emergency which was approved by parliament at its first
reading that is completely unacceptable, according to which the
president of a country in a state of emergency can annul the decision
of any state or local governing body. According to the constitution,
this in no way could've referred to the National Assembly, which means
that there should've been an amendment here. Whether [the amendment]
has been made or not I haven't yet seen; I think this law was brought
yesterday evening, which is odd - they took it to amend, knowing that
the criticism, especially our criticism, was right," he said.
Hovhannisyan recalled the process by which the law was adopted by
parliament at its first reading whereby lawmakers voted in place of
their absent colleagues, which, according to him, was covered very
well by the press.
"Even afterwards, the government understood that this way the law
contradicts the Constitution and the prime minister recalled it,
but it's been brought back again, as it's considered to be urgent,"
he said.
The lawmaker found it hard to say to what extent the "unacceptable
mistakes" in the law were rectified.
"One thing is important: in any case, involving the army in domestic
political affairs is unacceptable because this is how the Constitution
considers it. If as described by members of government, demoralization
is happening in the country, then they won't be characterized as a
domestic political struggle and then the situation will be completely
different and for that we have the opportunity of enforcing not a
'state of emergency' but martial law," he said.
According to Hovhannisyan, the draft law, as proposed, was
unacceptable, which was why it will be amended and discussed again.
"The way the bill is raised seems unacceptable for us, because it's
well understood that elections are coming up - why did they suddenly
turn their attention to and place importance on this issue right
before the election? The public would have the right to think that
the authorities are forecasting situations in which this law will be
needed as a tool, but from what these situations arise, we have to
fight against that, ballot stuffing, violations, buying votes and
the rest, so that such situations don't arise and not by presuming
it's all the same, you're going to do this anyway and there will
be backlash and you try to confront the backlash through this law -
this isn't an acceptable way [of doing things]," he concluded.
epress.am
02.24.2012
Under no circumstances should the army become a tool in issues of
domestic politics. Every country should have a law on the rule of
law during a state of emergency, but the way in which the government
brought this law to the National Assembly was unacceptable, head of
the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun, or ARF-D)
parliamentary faction Vahan Hovhannisyan told journalists in the
capital today.
"There's a provision in the RA draft law on the rule of law during
a state of emergency which was approved by parliament at its first
reading that is completely unacceptable, according to which the
president of a country in a state of emergency can annul the decision
of any state or local governing body. According to the constitution,
this in no way could've referred to the National Assembly, which means
that there should've been an amendment here. Whether [the amendment]
has been made or not I haven't yet seen; I think this law was brought
yesterday evening, which is odd - they took it to amend, knowing that
the criticism, especially our criticism, was right," he said.
Hovhannisyan recalled the process by which the law was adopted by
parliament at its first reading whereby lawmakers voted in place of
their absent colleagues, which, according to him, was covered very
well by the press.
"Even afterwards, the government understood that this way the law
contradicts the Constitution and the prime minister recalled it,
but it's been brought back again, as it's considered to be urgent,"
he said.
The lawmaker found it hard to say to what extent the "unacceptable
mistakes" in the law were rectified.
"One thing is important: in any case, involving the army in domestic
political affairs is unacceptable because this is how the Constitution
considers it. If as described by members of government, demoralization
is happening in the country, then they won't be characterized as a
domestic political struggle and then the situation will be completely
different and for that we have the opportunity of enforcing not a
'state of emergency' but martial law," he said.
According to Hovhannisyan, the draft law, as proposed, was
unacceptable, which was why it will be amended and discussed again.
"The way the bill is raised seems unacceptable for us, because it's
well understood that elections are coming up - why did they suddenly
turn their attention to and place importance on this issue right
before the election? The public would have the right to think that
the authorities are forecasting situations in which this law will be
needed as a tool, but from what these situations arise, we have to
fight against that, ballot stuffing, violations, buying votes and
the rest, so that such situations don't arise and not by presuming
it's all the same, you're going to do this anyway and there will
be backlash and you try to confront the backlash through this law -
this isn't an acceptable way [of doing things]," he concluded.