A new draft Constitution could gain broad public and political support if it is genuinely based on democratic reform and stronger state institutions. But if the authorities decide to push it through at any cost, presenting it as a way to meet Azerbaijan’s demand and the only path to signing a peace treaty, the opposition will have strong grounds to argue that another state is interfering in Armenia’s internal affairs. Political commentator Boris Navasardyan made this assessment.
He says it is necessary to wait for the draft to be published before judging its contents. Only then will it be possible to understand the authorities’ real intentions and assess how the opposition, experts, civil society and the wider public respond.
The authorities have two options
In Navasardyan’s assessment, the ruling political force has two options. The first is to present a constitutional draft that wins broad agreement at least among less politically engaged sections of society. In his view, such a document should create a real foundation for reform and the strengthening of democratic institutions. It should support the development of state institutions and preserve the separation of powers.
“If that happened, I think the consensus really could be broad. There would be support from experts and civil society, and opposition resistance would be weaker than if civil society representatives also began criticizing the draft once it is published,” he said.
According to Navasardyan, publishing such a draft could leave the opposition without convincing counterarguments. The opposition could certainly resist in keeping with its political mandate, but that resistance would be weaker and less persuasive to citizens.
The second option, the commentator says, is to push the draft through at any cost, arguing that it meets Azerbaijan’s demand and is the only route to signing and ratifying a peace treaty.
He warns that if the authorities choose this path and use every available means to secure the draft’s adoption, the opposition will have strong grounds to say that another state — Azerbaijan, in this case — is interfering in Armenia’s internal affairs.
The vote should be about the draft’s contents
The political commentator also considers it important to define what parliament’s debate and vote will be about. His preferred approach is for lawmakers to vote for or against the proposed constitutional text, expressing their position on its contents.
Navasardyan says that a complete consensus cannot, of course, be expected. But he would like two thirds of parliament’s members to agree with the substance of the draft. In his assessment, that would create a more constructive foundation for political development.
Recently, however, some have argued that the purpose of the parliamentary vote is to decide whether the people should make the final decision on the draft Constitution through a referendum.
Navasardyan considers this a weaker process when it comes to making the Constitution acceptable to everyone. Ultimately, he says, the draft should be assessed by politicians, civil society representatives and experts from different fields.
“At least in terms of its acceptability at the political level, it would be desirable for the two thirds or more who vote to open the way to a referendum to agree with that text,” Navasardyan emphasized.
👉 Politics