A1plus
| 11:10:30 | 02-07-2005 | Politics |
IF MAJORITY DOES NOT WANT TO CHANGE CONSTITUTION, NO NEED TO DO IT
Our interlocutor is Tigran Hakopyan, who was once an official at power and
worked for the Constitution but then was dismissed for abusing the
authority. After exceeding the admissible bounds of propaganda he was
dismissed from the post of chairman of the State Committee on TV and Radio.
Tigran Hakobyan is convinced that the amendments to the Constitution will
change nothing in the republic, since if the operating Constitution is
violated, the reformed one will be violated as well. Nevertheless, the
constitutional reform is approaching its logical end. But in T. Hakobyan’s
opinion, there are no discussions held and the society is not aware what
Armenia will benefit from this or that amendment. `Let’s take the clause on
dual citizenship. Some are for it, others are against. But I have heard
nothing but empty talk on this issue’, he noted. `Should the Mayor of
Yerevan be elected or not? I do not know what is correct, since there is no
debate on the topic. If in future proper officials willing to carry out
reforms come to power, they will appoint a figure to work in team and
implement a part of these reforms. If normal President is elected but mafia
clans decide to advance their candidate, he can upset the reforms, since in
Yerevan resistance of elected Mayor to reforms can be disastrous. Being a RA
citizen I was not explained why it is good or bad’, he said.
Tigran Hakobyan is convinced that sometimes an appointed body functions
better than an elected, because he bears responsibility not to the people
but to those, who appointed him. `Look at our parliament or
local-self-government bodies. Presently in Armenia, when a civic society has
not been formed yet and when votes can be `bought’ elective bodies do not
always work efficiently.
Tigran Hakobyan is concerned over the fact that not lawyers but politicians
are discussing the Constitution. `The preparation for the adoption of the
first Constitution was a brilliant example of juridical debate, since all
the lawyers in Armenia whether pro-governmental or oppositional were
involved in the process. Today only several politicians are discussing the
issue’, he said.
The Constitution will be changed via referendum. Whether this `national
examination’ is correct or was the parliament capable of passing all these
changes? However Tigran Hakobyan is not satisfied either with the mentality
of today’s electorate or the National Assembly.
He also considers the demand, according to which minimum 1/3 of the votes is
enough to pass the referendum to be not strict enough. `If the most
important law is being adopted, people should be interested and take part in
the election. If the majority does not see the necessity of changing the
Constitution, there is not need in it’, he resumed.
Diana Markosyan