Representatives of the executive and legislative bodies have been talking about the need to make constitutional changes for a long time. On 5 November, the Ministry of Justice organized discussions on Constitutional reforms. On 17 December of this year, the RA Prime Minister signed a decision on starting the process of forming the Professional Committee on Constitutional Reforms
Iravaban.net has launched a series of interviews, with the objective to present the observations and opinions of experts in the field on the need for constitutional reform.
We talked about the topic with Mr. Ara Ghazaryan, Lawyer
– The Ministry of Justice announced the initiation of the constitutional reform. To what extent its need is justified for it now?
– In my opinion, first we need to decide what needs to be changed, and then announce about it. The opposite always happens in our country, first they announce that it is necessary to change, then they decide what needs to be changed. This was the case in 2005, 2012 and 2015, and now it is the same.
– What factors should be taken into account before the adoption of the new Constitution and what should be the process of implementation of constitutional reforms?
– First of all, there must be a public demand for that, for example, there must be problematic issues in the system of public administration or the system of human rights. They must be really objectively based on public demand. Only then the political elite will decide to change the constitution. Further, starting with lawyer-scientists, ending with human rights activists, lawyers, etc., it is decided what to change, it is not natural. It is natural when there is a public demand and only then a decision is made that this problem should be solved by changing the Constitution.
– Mr. Ghazaryan, do you see a public demand?
– I do not see a public demand, first of all, because neither in professional circles nor in the civil society, during the last few years, there have been wide discussions on the need to change the Constitution. The political leadership expresses an opinion, then some circles begin to accept or reject this opinion, but there is no public discourse as such, because there is no objectivity or necessity for it. The biggest thing that society is concerned about today is Armenia’s defeat in the war, not a change in the Constitution.
– RA Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan once mentioned that during the crisis that arose in 2020, the parliamentary system of government showed its non-viability. Is there a need to change the way the country is governed?
– I will find it difficult to say, because parliamentarism really showed that it develops in Armenia with great difficulty, but whether it is necessary or not, I find it difficult to say. On the other hand, I have always said that parliamentarism is a way of governance of the most developed manifestation of democracy. We should try to preserve parliamentarism, not change the system of government and become presidential or semi-presidential. After all, it poses a threat to the reproduction of governance. The dangers must be taken into account.
– The Professional Committee on Constitutional Reforms (the activity of the Committee was suspended due to 2020 Karabakh war), on 22 August 2020, adopted the draft concept of decentralization of Constitutional Control and unification of the highest courts, in particular the establishment of the Supreme Court. To what extent is the decentralization of Constitutional control and the creation of the Supreme Court justified?
– There is no great need for that. If they want to unite the Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation, what problem do they want to solve with it? There will be confusion. These courts have worked quite effectively in the last 10 years. Change an entire Constitution to unite the two highest instances when there is no objective need for it… It is a populist step, I, as a lawyer, do not think that there is a need for the two courts to unite to overcome a crisis that does not exist.
– Experts in the field of anti-corruption argue that providing constitutional status and guarantees of independence to anti-corruption bodies, such as the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption and the Anti-Corruption Committee, will increase the independence and efficiency of these institutions. What is your opinion on this issue?
– The Anti-Corruption Committee has not started working yet. I do not think that when it starts to work it will work inefficiently and for that reason the Constitution should be changed. That law on confiscation of illicit property, if it is true that it has already studied 250 cases, those 250 cases should be served in the courts. There is no need to change the Constitution for that.
On 17 December of this year, the RA Prime Minister signed a decision on starting the process of forming the Professional Committee on Constitutional Reforms. The process seems to be starting. What course shall it have in your opinion?
– I don’t know, I am not so interested in what the process will be, people will be nominated and will work.
Hasmik Sargsyan
