Tweet
THE BLUFF OF ELIMINATION OF MONOPOLY
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments26018.html
Published: 14:37:53 - 02/05/2012
Lyudmila Sargsyan running the sixth on the Armenian National Congress
party list, carrier of Hnchakyan ideas and advocate of Vladimir
Putin's election stated that the aim of the ANC is to deprive the
RPA of monopoly.
Not only Lyudmila Sargsyan states this but also Vartan Oskanian who
is running the second on the Prosperous Armenia Party list.
What does an ordinary voter understand from all this. Is depriving
the RPA of monopoly equal to the establishment of constitutional
order in the country or are the political forces annoyed that the
RPA has everything so they want their own share.
After all, the concept of political monopoly is defined in legal
terms neither in Armenia, nor in any other country. The point is
that if there is an election mechanism and if the society has the
possibility to establish power through elections, then it becomes
absurd to give the legal definition to the political monopoly.
For example, if 65% of the society votes for a force, does this force
need to refuse 26% of votes not to establish monopoly?
Not to make this monopoly a source of violations, there are the
Constitution and the laws which regulate the activities of the state
institutions without taking into account what party they belong to.
If the president, parliament, government respect the Constitution
and laws, there is no difference who assumes these offices. And if
there is no respect for the Constitution in the country, even if the
government is divided between several forces, constitutional order
and legality will not be ensured.
For example, in 2003 there was no one-party monopoly in Armenia - the
president did not belong to any party, while there was no absolute
majority in parliament but an RPA, OYP and ARFD coalition. But it
did not hinder the "non-monopoly" power use violence against peace
protesters and journalists on April 12, 2004.
Consequently, the statements that it is necessary to fight against the
RPA or any other's monopoly have nothing in common with Constitutional
Order.
Moreover, there is danger that the elimination of the political
monopoly of the RPA can be another step to legitimization of the
anti-constitutional order.
In Armenia the problem is not the RPA monopoly but the fact that
this monopoly has been owned through illegal and anti-constitutional
ways, in other words, the anti-constitutional power of the RPA. The
difference is huge, since political forces need to be responsible
for their statements. It is one thing when you are responsible for
the elimination of the RPA monopoly and it is another thing when
you are responsible for the establishment of constitutional order in
the country.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments26018.html
Published: 14:37:53 - 02/05/2012
Lyudmila Sargsyan running the sixth on the Armenian National Congress
party list, carrier of Hnchakyan ideas and advocate of Vladimir
Putin's election stated that the aim of the ANC is to deprive the
RPA of monopoly.
Not only Lyudmila Sargsyan states this but also Vartan Oskanian who
is running the second on the Prosperous Armenia Party list.
What does an ordinary voter understand from all this. Is depriving
the RPA of monopoly equal to the establishment of constitutional
order in the country or are the political forces annoyed that the
RPA has everything so they want their own share.
After all, the concept of political monopoly is defined in legal
terms neither in Armenia, nor in any other country. The point is
that if there is an election mechanism and if the society has the
possibility to establish power through elections, then it becomes
absurd to give the legal definition to the political monopoly.
For example, if 65% of the society votes for a force, does this force
need to refuse 26% of votes not to establish monopoly?
Not to make this monopoly a source of violations, there are the
Constitution and the laws which regulate the activities of the state
institutions without taking into account what party they belong to.
If the president, parliament, government respect the Constitution
and laws, there is no difference who assumes these offices. And if
there is no respect for the Constitution in the country, even if the
government is divided between several forces, constitutional order
and legality will not be ensured.
For example, in 2003 there was no one-party monopoly in Armenia - the
president did not belong to any party, while there was no absolute
majority in parliament but an RPA, OYP and ARFD coalition. But it
did not hinder the "non-monopoly" power use violence against peace
protesters and journalists on April 12, 2004.
Consequently, the statements that it is necessary to fight against the
RPA or any other's monopoly have nothing in common with Constitutional
Order.
Moreover, there is danger that the elimination of the political
monopoly of the RPA can be another step to legitimization of the
anti-constitutional order.
In Armenia the problem is not the RPA monopoly but the fact that
this monopoly has been owned through illegal and anti-constitutional
ways, in other words, the anti-constitutional power of the RPA. The
difference is huge, since political forces need to be responsible
for their statements. It is one thing when you are responsible for
the elimination of the RPA monopoly and it is another thing when
you are responsible for the establishment of constitutional order in
the country.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress