Discussions of Armenia’s new Constitution should focus on the provisions of its main text, which will directly affect governance and citizens’ lives, rather than the wording of its preamble. This is the view of Daniel Ioannisyan, president of the Union of Informed Citizens NGO and a member of the Constitutional Reforms Council.
According to him, more important than debates over the preamble is understanding what kind of state the new Constitution is intended to create, what guarantees it provides and how well it serves citizens’ interests.
“I do not pay much attention to the preamble at all, because it has no legal force. The articles of the Constitution have legal force: they clearly regulate our relations with one another and with the state,” Ioannisyan said.
He believes the Constitution’s main text should, for example, enshrine guarantees for the independence of anti-corruption bodies. Ioannisyan directly links their effectiveness to the effectiveness of the state. He does not consider the wording of the preamble to have an equally immediate impact on everyday life.
“For me, it is much more important that the independence of anti-corruption bodies and the guarantees of that independence are written into the Constitution than what will be written in the preamble. If anti-corruption bodies work well in this country, we will have an effective state; if they work poorly, we will not,” he said.
The Constitution as rules established by citizens
According to Ioannisyan, the main purpose of constitutional reform should be to adopt a Constitution that citizens approve through a referendum and whose provisions reflect their interests.
He recalled that he and the organization he leads have been involved in constitutional reform since February 2020. He emphasized that the process began long before Azerbaijan demanded changes to the Constitution’s preamble.
“The most important thing in this process is for Armenia’s citizens to establish the rules by which they live,” he said.
Ioannisyan believes the Constitution should first and foremost support the country’s development and establish a relationship between the state and its citizens in which people feel that the state works for them.
In his assessment, achieving this requires both professional debate and broad, sustained public participation. Discussions should take place on every constitutional topic, allowing citizens to express their views and influence the proposed provisions.
“This is not a task for a day or a month. Sustained work is needed so that the public participates in establishing the rules by which it lives in this country. If people see that those rules serve their interests and that they are setting them themselves, rather than having someone impose them, public support could become so strong that opposition forces also understand that they should not stand against it,” Ioannisyan said.
Public support as a prerequisite for adopting the Constitution
At the same time, Ioannisyan considers securing parliamentary approval for the constitutional reform proposal difficult because of disagreements between the government and the opposition.
Putting the Constitution to a referendum requires approval from at least two-thirds of the National Assembly’s total membership — 70 of its 105 lawmakers. In Ioannisyan’s assessment, the ruling Civil Contract party does not hold enough seats to reach that threshold.
He doubts that a draft acceptable both to the ruling party and to at least one opposition force can be developed at present. Nevertheless, Ioannisyan believes broad public support for the proposal could improve the chances of securing the necessary parliamentary votes.
He also emphasized the importance of political parties participating in the Constitutional Reforms Council. According to Ioannisyan, Strong Armenia has appointed a representative to the council, while the Armenia Alliance continues to boycott its work.
Ioannisyan believes the legitimacy of the new Constitution and its prospects for adoption depend on the public both understanding the proposed changes and participating in their development. He says a Constitution adopted by citizens could, for the first time, establish rules that society defines for itself, rather than perceiving them as provisions imposed upon it.