Ms Kristine Grigoryan, Head of the Department for International Legal Co-operation of the Staff of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia has gained considerable experience and knowledge from her three-week visit to the United States. In the interview with us the US Alumni noted that the knowledge she had gained three years ago is still useful. In the scope of the series “US Alumni Lawyers of Armenia”, which Iravaban.net has launched in cooperation of the US Alumni Association of Armenia, we tried to understand what type of knowledge was it? How the best practices should be implemented in Armenia? And what are the differences? Details in the interview.
– When did you visit the United States and which was the program that you visited the US? And the most important question, what kind of experience did you get?
– It was the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP). And I visited the US in 2013 when I was working in the Staff of the National Assembly. The program was mainly aimed at studying the work of legislative branch.
– Do you mean the IVLP (International Visitor Leadership Program)?
– Yes, it is a three-week program. It has different approaches and different programs which are implemented within the scope of IVLP. In our case the program was aimed at the study of the work of the legislative system at the federal and state levels. Various meetings were scheduled in six provinces. During discussions Armenian and American experiences were presented. We were in Columbia (Washington), in Maryland, in Arizona, in New Hampshire, in Nebraska and in Massachusetts. The thematic focus of the project was very accurate special attention was paid to the legislative process. The objective was to find out how the legislative and political thinking developed. We studied in-depth the parliamentary ethics as well. It should be mentioned that in 2013, It was already a year since the Armenian lawmaker had adopted the amendment by which the Interim Ethics Committee of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia was created. In addition to parliamentary ethics, the issues of ethics of the public servants were discussed during the meetings as well. The other direction referred to public opinion collection mechanisms, electronic management tools, and the so-called “Town Hall Meeting”, in which I was personally present in small communities. Another issue of concern was public hearings about how the legislator works with voters and brings their issues to the parliament. I witnessed very interesting events in Arizona, where we encountered specific circumstances typical of parliamentarism: for example a senator, using his regulatory capabilities for hours, failed the program of the ruling party. It is one of the preliminarily planned ways to play for time. It is worth mentioning that these phenomena are typical of our parliament as well. The other important aspect was the work of interested groups and lobbyists. From this point of view, the regulations established for lobbyists were noteworthy: namely the corridors with markings in the buildings allocated for legislator. In conclusion, I would say that the meetings were held with the senators and were at a high level. The program was especially useful for me in terms of ethics. We talk a lot about parliamentary ethics, about the ethics of high-ranking officials, but we forget that ethical standards should be clear and strict for all government employees.
– What models for effective public discussion has the US adopted?
– The first that we have already discussed was the community model. The next were parliamentary public hearings where the interested parties involve people to discuss a specific issue and who would gain advantage from that draft; they call it “Institute of Witnesses”. The other form was the application of electronic management tools. Public active civil society organizations in the United States created these platforms, they were much more prepared and present high quality, alternative reports.
– Regarding the ethics, you have partially addressed these issues, but could you please tell in more details about the solution of the conflict of interest problem?
– In Nebraska, when I raised the issue of nepotism, the conflict of interests of relatives and friends, the Head of the Committee brought an interesting example. He said that considering the fact that the number of the population of the state is not large and there are really specific professions, it is possible that there can be only two experts in the province that are involved in these spheres, and they may possibly have family ties. In reply to my question whether it was not a conflict of interest, and would they apply to this expert, the Head of the Commission said that they would, because they had to understand which was primary for them, formal conflict of interests or the specific problem that they wanted to solve.
– Which are the hindering circumstances for introducing the experience you gained in our reality? Is it due to imperfect legal field or the low level of public awareness?
– I would definitely exclude the imperfect legal field. I do not think we have a very imperfect legal field because when we compared it, we understood that it is perfect. The problem here is the level of public consciousness. We all are members of this public; therefore, speaking about the public, I would not want to separate it to high-ranking officials and individual citizens.
The other important factor is the will and work on both sides, the public sector, governing structures and the civil society, which must be strong and well-organized to ensure its participation in public administration on equal base.
– In fact, this three-week visit was not only professional, but also effective from the human point of view.
– Obviously, human contacts were much more interesting, because the political division of forces was different in different states which we visited. America is diversity. Even in different states you will see diversity in the work of lobbyists.
– This experience also helps you in your current position, doesn’t it?
– Of course, yes. I can state that the experience related to public opinion collection mechanisms that I gained there, helps me in my current work here.
Interview: Gevorg Tosunyan
Photos: Alexander Sargsyan
Author of the idea Karen Zadoyan
Translation from Armenian: Ani Khachatryan, student of Graduate Certificate in Translation Progam, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, AUA
