THE SPECIAL FEATURES OF ARMENIAN PARLIAMENTARIANISM

The expression "to manage the state like a holding" has been registered in the political lexicon comparatively recently. In most cases, it does not have a negative hue. Many authoritative experts think, and not without grounds, that the transfer of successful "techniques" from big business to big politics, more often than not in a sphere that is most tightly bound up with the economy, frequently allows success to be achieved, where "customary" political methods fail.

Quite a few successful examples of economic and political reform, which have been implemented in different countries, using the "holding" principle, can readily be cited. Ultimately experts note that the major holdings that they deal with have different structures ranging from research laboratories to mass media and security services. They are by no means all profit-orientated as such, whereas the state must know how to handle money, to sell things on the world market and successfully promote itself… 

But, as these experts warn, managing a state like a multi-profile holding is one thing, but regarding an entire country as one's own "privatised stall" is something quite different.

Moreover, judging from the numerous indications, this is precisely the scenario that is unfolding in Armenia today, where the authorities are intensively pushing through the process of constitutional reform.

The country is being transformed with a flick of the wrist…

In Armenia the results of the 6th-December referendum on changes to the country's constitution have been summed up. According to Central Election Commission figures, the turn-out was just over 50 per cent. Of those who did vote, slightly more than 63 per cent voted for the reforms. It should be recalled that the constitutional reform proposed by Serzh Sargsyan, does in actual fact presuppose turning Armenia from a presidential republic into a parliamentary one. The post of president is retained, but the head of state will only have the powers of a representative and will not be elected in direct elections, but voted in by members of parliament.

The president's term in office is to be extended from five to seven years, but he will only be able to occupy that post for one term. The main ruling powers are to be passed on from the president to the prime minister and the Cabinet of Ministers. In the draft reform bill it indicates that the government is the supreme body of executive power, which "draws up and implements home and foreign policy". The parliamentary majority is to put forward a candidate for the post of head of the Cabinet, and presidential approval will only be a formality. The prime-minister is then to form a government, which is only responsible to parliament. In the event of war breaking out, it will not be the president who is the supreme commander-in-chief, but the prime minister (in peacetime it is the minister of defence who "steers" the army). Armenia's parliament will also be subject to the reform. Now there will not be 131 deputies, but 100 and they will be selected exclusively from party lists.

Strictly speaking, the process of constitutional reform has been going on in Armenia for more than two years now. This is not the only country among the former Soviet republics where a presidential form of rule has gone over (or is going over) to a parliamentary one. The best-known example here are the constitutional reforms conceived and implemented by former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. His concept was an elegant one without any hitches. After serving the regulation two terms in office as president, Saakashvili moved over into the seat of head of government and "grabbed" the lion's share of the powers for himself.

True, the plan failed. Georgia's "United National Movement Party" lost the elections but the "versatile invention" remained in place. Many people in Yerevan were convinced that Armenia's president, Serzh Sargsyan, had seized upon this idea, once he had announced the "reformation" of the system of power in Armenia. His presidential term also ends in 2018 and, to all appearances, Sargsyan does not feel like parting with power. All the more so, since the authorities in Armenia with its quietly dying economy, or to be more precise, the corrupt practices linked to them, do essentially represent the only really profitable business.

As a result, the "collective rationale" is working in Armenia without any hitches. The constitutional refo-rms as such were almost immediately pushed not just onto the side-lines, but right away from the main playing field. Many people in Yerevan noted that the extent of the "alteration" to power is the last thing that Armenia needs at the moment. The country needs real reforms in politics and the economy and not the handing over of power from the president to the prime minister. The leaders of the radical opposition have appealed to citizens to come out onto the streets and protest and have accused the authorities of destroying absolutely everything (which does generally correspond to what is actually happening in everyday life in Armenia). But the opposition were unable to put up any real resistance to the ruling bosses.

The transformation of Armenia from a presidential republic to a parliamentary authority, has gone ahead in an extremely resolute manner. To begin with, parliament approved the draft reform. It was opposed by the ruling Armenian Republic Party factions, as well as the "Dashnaktsutyun" Armenian Revolutionary Federation and the "Prosperous Armenia Party", on the initiative of the "Heritage" faction, the "Armenian National Con-gress" and two deputies from the "Orinats Yerkir Party" ("The Country of Law"). Nevertheless, the bill got the necessary majority of votes and was put up for public consultation.

True, they did not manage to get a "clear-cut" vote in Armenia. The opposition stated that there were numerous false entries. Even some really shocking cases were noted. According to a report in the Yerevan newspaper Hraparak, in Gyumri, Armenia's second largest city, there were members of the Avetisyan family on the electoral roll who had been murdered by the Russian mercenary V. Permyakov, a deserter from his military base. This could have been put down to negligence, but a "tick" had been entered after the surnames of the Avetisyan family indicating that they "had voted".

One can only hazard a guess at how many more "voters" like that there are, the majority of whom are fortunately alive and well, but are expats living abroad whose names have been included on the electoral roll. The media are quoting a statement by the head of the Armenian National Congress faction, Levon Zubaryan, that at one polling station a member of the inspecting commission was offered a substantial bribe, firstly to provide two new forms for proxies and secondly for him to leave the polling station for a couple of hours at a stipulated time.

At any rate, the US embassy in Armenia published a statement regarding the 6th-December referendum. The American diplomats expressed their satisfaction that the 6th-December constitutional referendum, conducted after public consultations, had been held peacefully. But there were subsequently more than a few flies in the ointment. The American diplomatic mission thought that the change in the system of government resulting from the new constitution would be a substantial one. Nevertheless, authentic reports by the political parties and non-party observers are said to be evoking concern and need to be thoroughly investigated to convince the Armenian people that the results of the referendum are legitimate.

PACE [the Parliamentary Assem-bly of the Council of Europe] was highly critical of the referendum, in spite of the fact that the mission was headed by a well-known pro-Arme-nian figure, Andreas Gross. In the view of the Council of Europe's representatives, the comparatively low turn-out of approximately 50 per cent reflects the fact that the referendum in Armenia stems from political interests. Besides, the key point in the draft reform, which envisages the transfer from a presidential model of government to a parliamentary one, is regarded by many citizens as a means of recreating the existing authority. Ultimately, as noted in the final conclusion, "the reform process which lasted two and half years was incomplete. Parliament only had a few weeks to discuss the text, and the public debates were limited to two weeks, which complicated the process of achieving a consensus".

Today, when asked how events will pan out in Armenia now following the referendum, experts are extremely evasive. The opposition was not immediately able to get numerous protest demonstrations staged. But many people feel sure that it is too early for the authorities to celebrate victory, all the more so since the losers may not turn out to be some kind of political grouping, but the whole of Armenia as country, which has been transformed into the "private enterprise" of the Sargsyan clan.