PRIVATIZATION MAKES SENSE IF IT RESULTS IN INVESTMENTS
By Karine Mangassarian

Yerkir.am
April 14, 2006

This week’s parliamentary discussion of the report on implementation
of the state program on privatization for 2001-2003 was so heated
that it soon turned into an opportunity to sort out the relations
between parties.

In the aftermath of two-day discussions the political forces presented
their positions on the report and the privatization processes in
Armenia.

Head of ARF’s parliamentary faction Levon Mkrtchian voiced his concerns
over the discussions in the parliament.”The discussion of the 2001-2003
report turned into a discussion of the overall privatization policies
implemented in Armenia over the past years.

I am sure that if this discussion were held some other time and not in
2006, a pre-election year, we would avoid such emotional outbursts,”
Mkrtchian said. He informed that similar reports were presented for
1994-1995, 1996-1998, 1998-2000 and some political forces represented
in the present parliament voted for these reports.

“When the privatization process was launched in Armenia several
ideology-based parties believed that the privatization policies should
be implemented based on approaches grounded on socialist ideas and
active intervention of the state.

At that time the liberal approach was selected and implemented. We
don’t see any significant difference between the policies implemented
in 1990’s and in 2001-2003. Moreover, 2004 inspires some hope for
positive developments,” Mkrtchian noted. He presented the following
examples.

In 2001-2003 117 entities were privatized and the budget revenues from
privatization amounted to 2.9 billion drams while in 2004 67 entities
were privatized but the budget revenues amounted to 2.7 billion
drams. Mkrtchian believes this means that the state administration
and policies tend to focus on certain issues and principles.

What should the National Assembly be concerned about? First of all,
it is the clarification of the legislative framework. Mkrtchian
believes the purpose of privatization is not the price for which
a given entity is privatized but the program based on which it is
privatized and the ways how that program is implemented.

“We have to monitor implementation of such programs. If we observe
tendencies whereby investment programs are not implemented we must
demand that clear-cut measures are undertaken. Several privatized
entities must be demonstratively taken back from new owners who do
not fulfill their obligations.

We have to differentiate between the processes of privatization and
alienation of property. We have to determine our further political
actions,” Mkrtchian noted suggesting that the National Assembly’s
relevant committee should hold hearings to evaluate the privatization
policies, assess the present situation and determine its future
directions.

Then the political forces will be able to present their approaches
because there are some tendencies that cause their concern. Mkrtchian
pointed to one of them: some entities, even functioning enterprises
are subjected to alienation through artificial bankruptcy.

“If we want to assess the present situation to be able to determine
our future actions let’s have hearings. Our faction can present
some proposals because we are truly happy that some political
parties grounded on liberal values return to socialist values and
start accepting what we were saying in the beginning of 1990’s,”
Mkrtchian stated.