EurasiaNet Organization
Jan 27 2005
ARMENIAN OPPOSITION OFFERS GOVERNMENT DEAL ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM
Emil Danielyan 1/27/05
Armenian opposition leaders have sent feelers to President Robert
Kocharian and his allies on a constitutional deal. The initiative
could break a lengthy deadlock that has prevented the president from
amending Armenia’s controversial basic law. At the same time, the
opposition’s surprise move poses political risks for Kocharian.
Political analysts have differing theories as to why the country’s
two main opposition groups are now ready to compromise after putting
up years of resistance to the constitutional changes. Most analysts
interpret the move as either a sign of a softening of the
opposition’s stance on Kocharian’s leadership, or as a ploy designed
to undermine Kocharian’s credibility.
The Ararutiun (Justice) bloc and the National Unity Party (AMK)
indicated on January 19 that they are ready to endorse Kocharian’s
package of constitutional amendments — due to be put to a nationwide
referendum later this year – provided that several changes are made.
The opposition’s proposals include giving the Armenian parliament a
larger role in the formation of the government, and making the mayor
of the capital Yerevan an elected official. The opposition also wants
to limit the president’s authority to appoint and dismiss judges.
The proposals were addressed to leaders of the three parties that are
represented in Kocharian’s cabinet, and that control the legislature.
Leaders of the governing coalition were clearly caught by surprise.
Parliament speaker Artur Baghdasarian promised to start
“consultations” with other majority leaders and deliver their common
response by the end of January.
Armenia’s post-Soviet constitution, enacted following a reputedly
fraudulent referendum in 1995, has long been criticized for vesting
too many powers in the presidency at the expense of the legislative
and judicial branches. It empowers the president to single-handedly
form and dismiss governments, dissolve the National Assembly
practically at will and name virtually all judges without
parliamentary confirmation.
Constitutional reform was among Kocharian’s key promises when he came
to power in 1998. It was also one of the conditions for Armenia’s
accession to the Council of Europe four years ago. Kocharian’s first
attempt to implement reforms ended in failure when his package of
draft amendments fell short of sufficient popular support at a
referendum in May 2003.
The opposition urged voters at the time to reject the proposed
changes, saying that they would only enhance executive power.
Opposition leaders were equally critical of revised amendments
jointly drafted by Kocharian and the coalition leaders in the course
of the last year. “The un-elected president and the dubiously elected
coalition have no right to remodel the constitution of the Republic
of Armenia,” one of them, Victor Dallakian, declared last August,
referring to the hotly disputed presidential and parliamentary
elections of 2003. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Armenian authorities, meanwhile, are facing growing pressure from the
Council of Europe over constitutional reform. In a resolution adopted
last September, the Strasbourg-based organization’s Parliamentary
Assembly (PACE) urged them to hold another referendum “as soon as
possible, and in any event by June 2005 at the latest.” The Armenian
parliament is expected to start final debates on the issue in March.
The Justice bloc and the AMK said they will suspend their year-long
boycott of parliament sessions if the presidential camp agrees to
their proposals. Significantly, those proposals reflect the
recommendations of the so-called Venice Commission, a Council of
Europe body monitoring legal reform in the member states. In an
interim report released in December, the commission concluded that
the revised amendments represent “a shift in favor of the president”
when compared to the initial version of constitutional reform
suggested by Kocharian in 2001.
“More significant amendments, especially with respect to the key
issue of the balance of powers between the state organs, are
necessary,” read the report. It noted that the Armenian legislature
would remain “subordinated” to the president and play no role in the
nomination and dismissal of prime ministers. The Venice Commission
also said the presidential authority to appoint and sack Yerevan
mayors contradicts not only European standards, but also some
provisions of the Armenian constitution.
These recommendations are largely acceptable to at least one of the
three governing parties, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF).
But it is Kocharian who has a final say on the matter, and it remains
unclear if he will agree to curbs on his existing authority.
The opposition hopes that Kocharian will not, according to some
observers. In that case, they say, opposition leaders might try to
take political advantage, claiming the moral high ground and
portraying the president as an inherently undemocratic politician.
The Armenian leader’s commitment to democracy and rule of law has
already been seriously questioned by the West. “If they don’t accept
[the opposition proposals], we will turn the constitutional
referendum into a referendum of confidence in Kocharian,” Dallakian
warned last week.
No wonder that Hayots Ashkhar, a Yerevan daily staunchly supportive
of Kocharian, looked for ulterior motives behind the opposition
overtures. In a weekend editorial titled “Political Games,” the paper
suggested that the opposition is bent on discrediting authorities in
the eyes of Europeans. The ruling coalition must therefore be on its
guard, it said.
Governing-coalition parties already offered the opposition to jointly
work out constitutional amendments last April, in an unsuccessful
attempt to stave off anti-Kocharian street protests in Yerevan. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. They now say the offer
may no longer be in force. “The situation has changed a bit [since
April],” said Armen Rustamian, an ARF leader. “So has our mood.”
The anticipated constitutional referendum should also finally clarify
whether Kocharian would like to stay in power if he completes his
second five-year tenure in 2008. The existing constitution bars him
from seeking a third term. The draft amendments currently in
circulation would not abolish this restriction, but they may still
undergo changes before being put to the vote.
Editor’s Note: Emil Danielyan is a Yerevan-based journalist and
political analyst.