Tweet
WILL THEY DIVIDE POWER?
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments27768.html
Published: 17:24:56 - 18/10/2012
A new formula has been circulated in domestic affairs which had been
set down during the parliamentary election - forming political balance
to replace political monopoly. What does this mean and what does this
have to do with the problems of Armenia?
To understand the political balance, one needs to understand the
political monopoly. It must be viewed on the example of Armenia.
Political monopoly means a political force, in this case the Republican
Party with the Republican parliamentary majority, president and
government.
Who has given this right to the RPA? The constitution does not prohibit
this. However, according to the Constitution, a force will come to
government upon the decision of people through election. It is clear
that the RPA has come to government through circumstances among which
the will of people is not found.
What is political balance then? It is a proposal to the RPA to share
the government formed despite the will of people. In fact, this has
nothing to do with elimination of political monopoly or is relevant
to the extent that the government is offered to restructure itself
from an LLC to a JSC. This looks like democracy but it is democracy
to the extent Armenia was democratic between 2003 and 2008.
In those years the joint-stock model of government was established in
Armenia. The government was formed by the OYP, ARF and RPA. However,
it would be exaggerated to say that this model was close to democracy
and government was not monopolized because the government was formed in
the result of a rigged election which went on to falsify the next two
national elections in 2007 and 2008, as well as the local elections
in between.
The government was a joint-stock company because its stockholders
accepted the rules of the game established by the government, i.e. the
criminal and oligarchic system based on quotas and clans.
The rules of the game were nevertheless crucial. The question is who
drafts those rules and where they are set down. In Armenia the rule
that has been set down is the Constitution. The Constitution does
not prohibit one force from holding all the three institutions. The
Constitution demands that this force should be elected through
people's vote.
Hence, Armenia needs to establish Constitutional order and free,
fair and transparent electoral mechanism rather than replace the
political monopoly by political balance. One is embarrassed to hear
that establishment of constitutional order is replaced by a declaration
on political balance when Armenia has already passed this way which
has led Armenia to absolute rule of the RPA.
Now a call is made to return to the past mechanism. It is good but
in this case the issue of a public discussion of gaps, mistakes,
weaknesses arises to ensure that this time the society will be put
on the right path.
When it is proposed to return to square one, the activities of not
only the present government but also the past rulers and decision
makers is worth discussion. Not only the present but also the past
decision makers should be called for an account.
In terms of establishment of constitutional order it is important
that another viable and powerful force oppose to the ruling political
party which will push it to make reforms and compromise. However,
everything ends up in a banal proposal of dividing power if the
slogan of proposed competitiveness is the political balance rather
than Constitutional order.
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments27768.html
Published: 17:24:56 - 18/10/2012
A new formula has been circulated in domestic affairs which had been
set down during the parliamentary election - forming political balance
to replace political monopoly. What does this mean and what does this
have to do with the problems of Armenia?
To understand the political balance, one needs to understand the
political monopoly. It must be viewed on the example of Armenia.
Political monopoly means a political force, in this case the Republican
Party with the Republican parliamentary majority, president and
government.
Who has given this right to the RPA? The constitution does not prohibit
this. However, according to the Constitution, a force will come to
government upon the decision of people through election. It is clear
that the RPA has come to government through circumstances among which
the will of people is not found.
What is political balance then? It is a proposal to the RPA to share
the government formed despite the will of people. In fact, this has
nothing to do with elimination of political monopoly or is relevant
to the extent that the government is offered to restructure itself
from an LLC to a JSC. This looks like democracy but it is democracy
to the extent Armenia was democratic between 2003 and 2008.
In those years the joint-stock model of government was established in
Armenia. The government was formed by the OYP, ARF and RPA. However,
it would be exaggerated to say that this model was close to democracy
and government was not monopolized because the government was formed in
the result of a rigged election which went on to falsify the next two
national elections in 2007 and 2008, as well as the local elections
in between.
The government was a joint-stock company because its stockholders
accepted the rules of the game established by the government, i.e. the
criminal and oligarchic system based on quotas and clans.
The rules of the game were nevertheless crucial. The question is who
drafts those rules and where they are set down. In Armenia the rule
that has been set down is the Constitution. The Constitution does
not prohibit one force from holding all the three institutions. The
Constitution demands that this force should be elected through
people's vote.
Hence, Armenia needs to establish Constitutional order and free,
fair and transparent electoral mechanism rather than replace the
political monopoly by political balance. One is embarrassed to hear
that establishment of constitutional order is replaced by a declaration
on political balance when Armenia has already passed this way which
has led Armenia to absolute rule of the RPA.
Now a call is made to return to the past mechanism. It is good but
in this case the issue of a public discussion of gaps, mistakes,
weaknesses arises to ensure that this time the society will be put
on the right path.
When it is proposed to return to square one, the activities of not
only the present government but also the past rulers and decision
makers is worth discussion. Not only the present but also the past
decision makers should be called for an account.
In terms of establishment of constitutional order it is important
that another viable and powerful force oppose to the ruling political
party which will push it to make reforms and compromise. However,
everything ends up in a banal proposal of dividing power if the
slogan of proposed competitiveness is the political balance rather
than Constitutional order.