Politics in Hayastan

[Vrej1915]

Re: Politics in Hayastan

Տիգրան Սարգսյանը` ապագա նախագա՞հ

20 Հոկտեմբերի 2015,

Ղազախստանում կայացած ԵՏՄ գագաթաժողովում Հայաստանի, Բելառուսի, Ռուսաստանի, Ղազախստանի և Ղրղզստանի նախագահները Եվրասիական տնտեսական հանձնաժողովի նախագահի պաշտոնում հաստատեցին ՀՀ նախկին վարչապետ, ԱՄՆ-ում Հայաստանի ներկայիս դեսպան Տիգրան Սարգսյանի թեկնածությունը: ԵՏՄ-ի պայմանագրով այդ պաշտոնը զբաղեցվում է 4 տարի ժամկետով: Փաստորեն, 4 տարի շարունակ Տիգրան Սարգսյանը հանդիսանալու է այդ կազմակերպության «վարչապետը»:

Եթե նկատի ունենանք, որ եկող տարվա փետրվարից ԵՏՄ նախագահությունն անցնում է Հայաստանին, ապա այդ պաշտոնում Հայաստանի ներկայացուցչի նշանակումը թվում է տրամաբանական: Սակայն ԵՏՄ նախագահության ստանձնման և ԵՏՀ-ի նախագահի պաշտոնում նշանակում կատարելու պրոցեսները միմյանց հետ կապ չունեն: Եթե Տիգրան Սարգսյանն սկսի աշխատել այդ պաշտոնում, ապա 2017-ից նա գործելու է ԵՏՄ-ում նախագահող նոր երկրի պարագայում, այնպես, ինչպես անցած տարվա ընթացքում Ռուսաստանը ներկայացնող Վիկտոր Խրիստենկոն էր հանձնաժողովի նախագահի գործառույթներն իրականացնում ԵՏՄ-ում Բելառուսի նախագահության պայմաններում: Հետևաբար, կոնկրետ Տիգրան Սարգսյանի թեկնածության հաստատումը ոչ թե այդ կառույցի ընթացակարգերով էր պայմանավորված, այլ քաղաքական որոշման հետևանք էր:

Հարցն այն է` ո՞ւմն է եղել այդ որոշումը` Հայաստանի՞նը` ի դեմս նախագահ Սերժ Սարգսյանի, թե՞ ԵՏՄ հիմնադիր անդամ երկրներինը և դրանց նախագահներինը կամ նրանցից որևէ մեկինը:

Բորովոյեում կայացած ԵՏՄ գագաթաժողովում Տիգրան Սարգսյանի թեկնածությանը հավանություն տալը Բելառուսի նախագահ Ալեքսանդր Լուկաշենկոն հիմնավորել էր հետևյալ կերպ. «Նրան աջակցում է Ռուսաստանի նախագահը, նա ժամանակին աշխատել է նրա հետ: Ասում են՝ շատ փորձառու, առաջադեմ մասնագետ է: Այդ պատճառով մենք նրան նշանակել ենք այդ հանձնաժողովի նախագահ: Եվ փետրվարի 1-ից նա կսկսի իր աշխատանքը»: Լուկաշենկոյի այս հիմնավորումից պարզ է դառնում, որ Տիգրան Սարգսյանի թեկնածությանը անդամ երկրների ղեկավարները հավանություն են տվել ոչ այնքան այն պատճառով, որ Սերժ Սարգսյանն է առաջադրել, այլ որ Տիգրան Սարգսյանը «վայելում է» ՌԴ նախագահ Վլադիմիր Պուտինի աջակցությունը: Այսինքն` եթե Հայաստանից որևէ մեկը պետք է ստանձներ այդ պաշտոնը, ապա այդ մեկը պետք է լիներ բացառապես Տիգրան Սարգսյանը: Հետևաբար, տվյալ դեպքում ավելի շատ կարելի է խոսել ոչ թե Երևանի, այլ Կրեմլի կողմից Տիգրան Սարգսյանի նշանակման մասին:

Եվրասիական տնտեսական հանձնաժողովի նախագահն օժտված է բացառապես կատարողական լիազորություններով: Քանի որ հիմնական քաղաքական որոշումները ԵՏՄ-ում կայացվում են Պուտին-Լուկաշենկո-Նազարբաև եռանկյունու կողմից, ստացվում է, որ Սարգսյանն ավելի շատ հանդես է գալու հենց այս եռյակի կայացրած առանցքային քաղաքական որոշումները կատարողի դերում` ունենալով դրա վրա ազդելու շատ չնչին հնարավորություն:

Եվ, այնուամենայնիվ, դա պաշտոն է, որն ունի լուրջ քաղաքական կշիռ, որի վրա է դրված ԵՏՄ-ն ներկայացնելու պարտականությունը, և որը երկրների պայմանագրային պարտավորությունների կատարման կազմակերպական մակարդակում ունի հսկայական ազդեցության լծակներ: Այս դաշտում է, որ Տիգրան Սարգսյանը կարող է իր նոր կարգավիճակն օգտագործել կազմակերության ներսում Հայաստանի` իբրև սուբյեկտի, ազդեցության, կշռի, հեղինակության բարձրացման համար: Հենց այս տեսակետից է էական դառնում` ինչպե՞ս է նա կարողանալու Հայաստանի շահերը համատեղել ԵՏՄ եռյակի և հատկապես` ՌԴ-ի շահերի հետ, ինչպե՞ս է գտնելու մեխանիզմներ, որոնցով Հայաստանը վերջապես կսկսի վնասներ կրելու փոխարեն օգուտներ ստանալ ԵՏՄ-ին անդամակցելուց: Դրա համար նրան անհրաժեշտ է լինելու լուծել չափազանց դժվարին մի խնդիր` լինել ոչ թե Կրեմլի` իրեն նշանակողի «համհարզը», այլ Հայաստանի «պատվիրակը»` բառի բովանդակային իմաստով:

Այս հանգամանքն ունի նաև քաղաքական նուրբ ենթատեքստ: Եթե Սերժ Սարգսյանը եղել է զուտ իր նախկին վարչապետի թեկնածությանը համաձայնություն տվողի կարգավիճակում, ապա Տիգրան Սարգսյանն առնվազն 4 տարով նրա համար դառնում է անվերահսկելի, գործնականում` ՌԴ-ի վերակացուն Հայաստանի վրա: Սակայն շատ ավելի մեծ է հավանականությունը, որ նրա նշանակումը առաջին հերթին Սերժ Սարգսյանի նախաձեռնությունն է:

Չնայած վարչապետության շրջանի լուրջ ձախողումներին` ամեն դեպքում Սերժ Սարգսյանը շարունակում է վստահել Տիգրան Սարգսյանին: Նախագահը դա հաստատեց` նրան ԱՄՆ-ում դեսպան նշանակելով: Եվ «գործուղելով» ԵՏՄ` Սերժ Սարգսյանը կարող էր նրա հետ կապված որոշակի քաղաքական պլաններ գծագրել իշխանության ապագայի համար, որը տեղավորվում է սահմանադրական փոփոխությունների նախաձեռնության համատեքստում:

Որքան էլ ԵՏՄ-ին Հայաստանի անդամակցության նպատակահարմարության հարցում Տիգրան Սարգսյանը երկակի տեսակետի կրող է ու, ըստ ամենայնի, հոգու խորքում չի հավատում ո'չ ԵՏՄ-ի հեռանկարին, ո'չ էլ Հայաստանի համար դրա օգտակարությանը, սակայն փաստ է, որ նրան ընդունում ու վստահում են Կրեմլում: Միևնույն ժամանակ, սակայն, Տիգրան Սարգսյանը պրոռուսական օրիենտացիա չունի, և նրա նկատմամբ բավականաչափ լոյալ ընկալում կա Արևմուտքում: Չի բացառվում, որ Սերժ Սարգսյանը հենց նրան է համարում այդ երկու բևեռների միջև բալանսավորված քաղաքականություն իրականացնելուն ունակ գործիչ: Նրան խաղարկելով եվրասիական «կիսադաշտում»` նախագահը կարող է փորձել լուծել հայաստանյան ապագա իշխանությունում նրան առանցքային դերակատարում վերապահելու հարցում Ռուսաստանի աջակցության խնդիրը: Խոսքը չի վերաբերում վարչապետի պաշտոնին: Հանրաքվեով սահմանադրական փոփոխությունների ընդունումից հետո իշխանությունը լինելու է եռաբևեռ: Եվ Սերժ Սարգսյանը չի նշել, թե ում է տեսնում իր ժառանգորդի դերում: 2018թ. ապրիլին կլրանա Սերժ Սարգսյանի պաշտոնավարման ժամկետը: Հենց այդ դերի համար կարող է նախապատրաստվել Տիգրան Սարգսյանը: Դրա համար բավարար կլինի խորհրդարանի ¾-ի վստահության քվեն: Ու չի բացառվում, որ այդ վստահության քաղաքական կապիտալի կուտակումն է ԵՏՄ հանձնաժողովի նախագահի պաշտոնում նրա նշանակման նպատակներից մեկը:

Գևորգ Դարբինյան

Yerkir.am

[HyeSocialist]

Re: Politics in Hayastan

Constitutional Reform Debate: Experts say Armenia not ready for parliamentary form of government

The rules of the political system in Armenia are not democratic enough, that’s why transition to a parliamentary form of government, as stipulated by the draft constitution amendments put to a referendum on December 6, will not be successful for the country, some experts say, bringing the example of a number of former Soviet countries that are parliamentary republics.

During public discussions dealing with the constitutional amendments process and the proposed changes to the government system on Tuesday, Hovsep Khurshudyan, a representative of the European Union’s Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum, said he recently returned from Moldova, a country that has had a parliamentary form of government.

“Today, in Moldova there is a collective irresponsibility. A year ago a billion dollars were lost from the budget of that country, and till today angry people are holding protests not knowing who to demand [that money] from,” said Khurshudyan, stressing that a parliamentary form of government can work only in full-fledged democracies.

“But what has been done so far in Armenia to promote institutional democracy that would be able to work in conditions of the institutions of parliamentarianism? Nothing has been done. Moreover, everything has been done in the opposite direction so that no political party or any political institution can become full-fledged,” he added.

According to Khurshudyan, parliamentarianism requires well-established parties, and in order to achieve that, political parties need to have financial resources for their activities. In Armenia, there are two possibilities for that – donations and/or state funding, which is done for the political parties that enter the parliament in proportion to the votes they received.

“The first option is closed. Everyone knows what happens to entrepreneurs who dare to fund any opposition party. Such businessmen immediately face risks of becoming bankrupt. The latest example was in February when a businessman [Gagik Tsarukyan] tried to go against the government, and he was neutralized, taken out of the political process,” the expert said.

According to Khurshudyan, while the parties that have small factions in the National Assembly do get some state funding, it is nowhere near enough even for office expenses.

“In other words, there is no mechanism for parties to become full-fledged,” he said.

Transparency International Anti-Corruption Center head Varuzhan Hoktanyan also sees risks in the transition to a parliamentary form of government.

“No matter how positive the parliamentary form of government may seem, in Armenia this transition will only strengthen the power of the ruling party and elites,” Hoktanyan said, bringing the example of the Soviet Union where there was a one-party rule in conditions of the parliamentary form of government.

“Now we have a super president and [after the changes] we will have a super prime minister or super parliament speaker. In this sense not much will change,” he added.

Representatives of the ruling Republican Party, several opposition parties as well as political experts advocating the reform insist, however, that transforming Armenia into a parliamentary republic will only promote the country’s further democratization through the decentralization of power. This, they argue, will only help further develop political parties in Armenia. They also expect that the political system will become more stable due to the enhanced institutional role of the country’s opposition.

http://armenianow.com/news/constitution/67305/armenia_constitution_referendum_reform_discussion

-----

The "No" campaign is starting to sound more absurd. I'm no fan of Sergio, but they're really not making a strong case.

[Haykakan]

Re: Politics in Hayastan

The whole constitutional format is a bunch of bologna... it is not the system of government that determines a country's success of failure. It is the motives of those who are leading that matter. Throughout history we have seen many different types of governments achieve both success and failure and no one places these outcomes on shoulders of government format but leadership itself has made huge differences. I could not care less if Armenia was a Democracy, Monarchy, Dictatorship,...what really matters is how her people are living. Regardless of the format, it has always been the quality of her leaders that would make the difference one way or another. Getting people to focus on the wrong things has always been and continues to be the way the elites control them.

[HyeSocialist]

Re: Politics in Hayastan

The whole constitutional format is a bunch of bologna... it is not the system of government that determines a country's success of failure. It is the motives of those who are leading that matter. Throughout history we have seen many different types of governments achieve both success and failure and no one places these outcomes on shoulders of government format but leadership itself has made huge differences. I could not care less if Armenia was a Democracy, Monarchy, Dictatorship,...what really matters is how her people are living. Regardless of the format, it has always been the quality of her leaders that would make the difference one way or another. Getting people to focus on the wrong things has always been and continues to be the way the elites control them.

Agreed, and Armenia apparently is bereft of quality leadership. Singapore managed to build a wealthy country on an authoritarian government, but then again it had quality leadership.

[Zeytun]

Re: Politics in Hayastan

https://iwpr.net/global-voices/nothing-straightforward-about-armenian

Nothing Straightforward About Armenian Referendum


In just over a month, voters in Armenia will get a chance to decide on a new constitution that in theory should make for a more democratic system with more

powers vested in parliament.

Opposition parties are against the changes, which they see as an underhand way of perpetuating the Republican Party’s hold on power.

On October 8, three days after parliament passed a package of amendments, President Serzh Sargsyan called a constitutional referendum for December 6.

The document was supported by 104 of the 131 members of the chamber, a majority that the Republicans claimed was a ringing endorsement.

“I’d like to point out that none of the opposition party groups in parliament voted against it en masse, and two of the five opposition groups announced they supported the amendments,” the Republicans’ parliamentary secretary, Gagik Melikyan, said afterwards.

In reality, most opposition politicians boycotted the vote or abstained the vote, and seven legislators voted no.

“This is not a political consensus, but rather an unconstitutional vote prompted by threats, pressure and bribery. It has nothing whatever to do with the will of the Armenian people,” legislators were told by Levon Zurabyan, parliamentary leader of the Armenian National Congress (ANC).

Zurabyan accused the authorities of laying the ground by driving a wedge between the three main opposition parties, the ANC, Prosperous Armenia and the Heritage Party earlier this year. (See Armenian Opposition Force Backs Down for the background to this.)

As so often happens in Armenia, the opposition was unable to present a united front on the issue. Most sitting members of Prosperous Armenia and Dashnaktsutyun supported the Republicans in the October 5 ballot. One of the ANC’s seven legislators and two of Heritage’s four also voted for the amendments.

The ANC and Heritage say they might work together, but they have set up separate campaign headquarters to press for a no vote in the referendum.

On paper, the revised constitution looks like everything the opposition could possibly ask for. After all, the current constitution, dating from 1995, has entrenched a system where the president wields a lot of power and makes most of the important decisions. This was only slightly mitigated by amendments passed in 2005 that at least gave parliament the right to approve new prime ministers, rather than having them simply appointed by the head of state.

The latest proposed changes would further strengthen the role of parliament and relegatethe president to a largely ceremonial role with no power of veto and no right to wade in on political matters. (See also Armenia's Contested Political Reforms.)

Presidents would no longer be elected by the people, but would instead be chosen by parliament.They would only serve a single term of seven years. Under the current system, President Sargsyan is elected for five years and is into his second term, after which he must step down in 2018.

Parliament would shrink from 131 to 101 seats, all elected by proportional representation. At the moment, 41 are decided in first-past-the-post constituencies and the rest by proportional representation.

The constitutional amendments also contain an unusual arrangement designed to ensure what is described as a “stable majority”. In practice, if no one party is able to form a majority government after an election, a second round of voting takes place, a run-off between the two parties or coalitions that scored the most votes the first time.

“This new provision represents progress for Armenia and opens the way for it to become more democratic,” Melikyan said, pointing out that the president had repeatedly stated that he would not seek to engineer a third term, or to claim the post of prime minister or parliamentary speaker.

The opposition fear that this system would mean that the ruling party and its leader – currently the Republicans and Sargsyan, even after he steps down as president – would always end up winning parliamentary elections.At the moment, the Republican Party has an absolute majority with 70 seats.

Hrayr Manukyan is a member of a new movement called Don’t Hold It (the referendum), and is sceptical that those behind the constitutional changes are acting in good faith.

“It’s hard to believe the Republicans, who have been in power for 16 years and have fixed presidential and parliament on three occasions over that period,” he told IWPR. “Now people from the party are saying all they care about is democracy. So Serzh Sargsyan doesn’t become prime minister, president or speaker – he will be party leader, and he’ll run the country in exactly the same way that Communist Party first secretaries did in the Soviet Union. That’s precisely what this second-round ballot provision is about.”

The voices speaking out against constitutional have now been joined by Robert Kocharyan, who preceded his then ally Sargsyan as Armenian president and cleared the way for an easy succession in 2008.

“The draft constitution contains significant risks that could nudge the country to a de facto one-party system, and hence to the monopolisation of politics and to stagnation,” he said.

Kocharyan also drew an analogy to the Soviet period, when the constitution was “full of fine words”, but the Communist Party ruled unchallenged.

Ruben Mehrabyan, a researcher at the Armenian Centre for International and Political Studies, predicts that the referendum will produce a yes vote because the opposition’s voice does not carry enough force. But he doubts the new system will guarantee the political stability it is supposed to be designed for.

“Of course these amendments are a step backwards from democracy,” Mehrabyan told IWPR. “The question is, though, whether these changes will allow those in power to create conditions that are stable and that they can predict. That’s doubtful in these extremely unstable times.”

[HyeSocialist]

Re: Politics in Hayastan

https://iwpr.net/global-voices/nothi...about-armenian

Nothing Straightforward About Armenian Referendum


In just over a month, voters in Armenia will get a chance to decide on a new constitution that in theory should make for a more democratic system with more

powers vested in parliament.

Opposition parties are against the changes, which they see as an underhand way of perpetuating the Republican Party’s hold on power.

On October 8, three days after parliament passed a package of amendments, President Serzh Sargsyan called a constitutional referendum for December 6.

The document was supported by 104 of the 131 members of the chamber, a majority that the Republicans claimed was a ringing endorsement.

“I’d like to point out that none of the opposition party groups in parliament voted against it en masse, and two of the five opposition groups announced they supported the amendments,” the Republicans’ parliamentary secretary, Gagik Melikyan, said afterwards.

In reality, most opposition politicians boycotted the vote or abstained the vote, and seven legislators voted no.

“This is not a political consensus, but rather an unconstitutional vote prompted by threats, pressure and bribery. It has nothing whatever to do with the will of the Armenian people,” legislators were told by Levon Zurabyan, parliamentary leader of the Armenian National Congress (ANC).

Zurabyan accused the authorities of laying the ground by driving a wedge between the three main opposition parties, the ANC, Prosperous Armenia and the Heritage Party earlier this year. (See Armenian Opposition Force Backs Down for the background to this.)

As so often happens in Armenia, the opposition was unable to present a united front on the issue. Most sitting members of Prosperous Armenia and Dashnaktsutyun supported the Republicans in the October 5 ballot. One of the ANC’s seven legislators and two of Heritage’s four also voted for the amendments.

The ANC and Heritage say they might work together, but they have set up separate campaign headquarters to press for a no vote in the referendum.

On paper, the revised constitution looks like everything the opposition could possibly ask for. After all, the current constitution, dating from 1995, has entrenched a system where the president wields a lot of power and makes most of the important decisions. This was only slightly mitigated by amendments passed in 2005 that at least gave parliament the right to approve new prime ministers, rather than having them simply appointed by the head of state.

The latest proposed changes would further strengthen the role of parliament and relegatethe president to a largely ceremonial role with no power of veto and no right to wade in on political matters. (See also Armenia's Contested Political Reforms.)

Presidents would no longer be elected by the people, but would instead be chosen by parliament.They would only serve a single term of seven years. Under the current system, President Sargsyan is elected for five years and is into his second term, after which he must step down in 2018.

Parliament would shrink from 131 to 101 seats, all elected by proportional representation. At the moment, 41 are decided in first-past-the-post constituencies and the rest by proportional representation.

The constitutional amendments also contain an unusual arrangement designed to ensure what is described as a “stable majority”. In practice, if no one party is able to form a majority government after an election, a second round of voting takes place, a run-off between the two parties or coalitions that scored the most votes the first time.

“This new provision represents progress for Armenia and opens the way for it to become more democratic,” Melikyan said, pointing out that the president had repeatedly stated that he would not seek to engineer a third term, or to claim the post of prime minister or parliamentary speaker.

The opposition fear that this system would mean that the ruling party and its leader – currently the Republicans and Sargsyan, even after he steps down as president – would always end up winning parliamentary elections.At the moment, the Republican Party has an absolute majority with 70 seats.

Hrayr Manukyan is a member of a new movement called Don’t Hold It (the referendum), and is sceptical that those behind the constitutional changes are acting in good faith.

“It’s hard to believe the Republicans, who have been in power for 16 years and have fixed presidential and parliament on three occasions over that period,” he told IWPR. “Now people from the party are saying all they care about is democracy. So Serzh Sargsyan doesn’t become prime minister, president or speaker – he will be party leader, and he’ll run the country in exactly the same way that Communist Party first secretaries did in the Soviet Union. That’s precisely what this second-round ballot provision is about.”

The voices speaking out against constitutional have now been joined by Robert Kocharyan, who preceded his then ally Sargsyan as Armenian president and cleared the way for an easy succession in 2008.

“The draft constitution contains significant risks that could nudge the country to a de facto one-party system, and hence to the monopolisation of politics and to stagnation,” he said.

Kocharyan also drew an analogy to the Soviet period, when the constitution was “full of fine words”, but the Communist Party ruled unchallenged.

Ruben Mehrabyan, a researcher at the Armenian Centre for International and Political Studies, predicts that the referendum will produce a yes vote because the opposition’s voice does not carry enough force. But he doubts the new system will guarantee the political stability it is supposed to be designed for.

“Of course these amendments are a step backwards from democracy,” Mehrabyan told IWPR. “The question is, though, whether these changes will allow those in power to create conditions that are stable and that they can predict. That’s doubtful in these extremely unstable times.”

It really sounds like the opposition party is only their to just say no to anything. Sounds like the Republicans here in the USA. If Kocharyan is against it, hell I'm even more for it.

[londontsi]

Re: Politics in Hayastan

It really sounds like the opposition party is only their to just say no to anything. Sounds like the Republicans here in the USA. If Kocharyan is against it, hell I'm even more for it.

It does not matter whether you are for it or against it.

Do you understand it?

This is not a football match.

I would bet my bottom dollar that 90% of the population do not understand it.

They will vote based on whether they like the presenters or not.

PS.
If you understand it tell us about it, we would love to be as smart as you.

.

[HyeSocialist]

Re: Politics in Hayastan

It does not matter whether you are for it or against it.

Do you understand it?

This is not a football match.

I would bet my bottom dollar that 90% of the population do not understand it.

They will vote based on whether they like the presenters or not.

PS.
If you understand it tell us about it, we would love to be as smart as you.

.

Thank you for your passive aggressive back handed compliment. The amendments take Armenia from a Presidential Republic to a Parliamentary Republic.

There will not be a strong presidential office, meaning the executive authority does not come from a single individual. Executive power comes from the new parliament which elects the Prime Minister. Your username is Londontsi. Why are you not familiar with Parliament?

The reforms intend to take Armenia from a system that looks like the USA to one that looks more like the UK.

http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-REF(2014)033-e

[Eddo211]

Re: Politics in Hayastan

This is where the Prime Minister holds more power than the President.

[londontsi]

Re: Politics in Hayastan

Infuriated Citizen Tells Armenian President to ‘Change Yourself, Not the Constitution'



On Wednesday morning an elderly man blocked Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan's car in front of his mansion in Yerevan, demanding Sargsyan speak with him.

A video published by Aravot.am shows the man telling the president that “courts do not function properly in Armenia,” to which Sargsyan responds, “Perhaps.” When the annoyed citzen asks, “What do you mean – 'perhaps',” Sargsyan says “the Constitution is currently being changed so that the courts would function.

“You should change yourself, not the Constitution! Half of my family has fled [the country]; what should I do? Do you want to turn us into terrorists? […] I have nothing to lose,” the man says.

Serzh Sargsyan got into his car and drove away, while law enforcement officers tried to calm the indignant man down. “How can I calm down? […] They have stolen my country!”