Armenia experiencing another crisis of power
Armenia, where street policy prevails again, is experiencing another crisis of power with growing dispute between the government and the parliament.
Armenia, where street policy prevails again, is experiencing another crisis of power with growing dispute between the government and the parliament.
After the parliament passed a bill to prevent the dissolution of the National Assembly (parliament), Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan led people to the streets and said at a spontaneous rally about the dismissal of ministers from the Prosperous Armenia (PAP) and Dashnaktsutyun parties. He also said he will resign after the orders about dismissals de jure come into force.
The bill passed by the parliament deprives Pashinyan of the opportunity to hold early elections, having received a loyal parliament, and a chance to become the legally elected prime minister. Political October in Armenia promises to be hot.
The transit of power that began in Armenia in April-May of the current year, which resulted in Serzh Sarkisian’s resignation and the election of Nikol Pashinyan as prime minister of the country, was expected to reach its logical end. It is only natural that a prime minister without a parliament in a parliamentary form of government will always be in danger of losing the levers of power. So, the confrontation with the National Assembly proved was not long in coming.
Pashinyan, who came to power as a result of the revolutionary movement, called the adoption of this law counter-revolution.
“With this vote and the introduction of this bill into circulation, the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) and the forces assisting them officially declared a counter-revolution in Armenia. The counter-revolution has no chance in Armenia, since no one can take away the victory from the people,” said Pashinyan.
The conflict between Pashinyan and the opposition, to which Tsarukyan bloc and Dashnaktsutyun have now joined, arose out of the demands of the prime minister to hold early parliamentary elections in December 2018.
When RPA leader Serzh Sargsyan resigned, and the founder of the “Civil Contract” party, opposition member Nikol Pashinyan took his place, the executive power “migrated” to his hands, while the legislative power (parliament) was left to the republicans.
What does it mean? The parliament could theoretically block any initiatives of the government and generally paralyze the work of two of the three branches of power in Armenia. This is another “problem” of the new constitution - by default it assumes that the head of the government is always appointed by parliamentary majority. However, Pashinyan is the prime minister of the minority, as he has only nine people in the National Assembly.
In order to deal with this situation and somehow normalize it, Nikol Pashinyan needs to dissolve the parliament and hold early elections.
According to the constitution, this may happen only in two cases if the parliament does not elect the prime minister twice in a row or rejects the program of the newly elected government. In both cases, Pashinyan will have to resign with a view to immediate re-election, otherwise he will lose his chair.
The problem, however, is that the composition of the parliament has “remained” the same since the RPA was in power, and in the event of Pashinyan’s resignation, the opposition forces in the Armenian legislature can elect “their own” prime minister, having made a de facto counter-revolutionary coup.
That is why Pashinyan had to urge the people to once again go to the streets and appeal to the President of the country Armen Sargsyan not to sign the scandalous bill.
This is how another crisis of power arose in Armenia, but what’s even more interesting is how those events are linked to the foreign policy of the country.
Soon after the velvet revolution in the spring of 2018, Pashinyan began to make very contradictory statements about the settlement of the Armenia-Azerbaijan NagornoKarabakh conflict.
His appeals were especially remembered for returning the separatist regime of Nagorno-Karabakh to the negotiating table.
Pashinyan explained this by the fact that he is not authorized to speak on behalf of the “people of Karabakh”. The newly minted prime minister also sent his son to military service in the frontline zone. All this caused great concern in Azerbaijan.
However, on the sidelines of the summit of the CIS Council of Heads of State in Dushanbe, Nikol Pashinyan initiated a conversation with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev. As a result, the parties decided to work out mechanisms for establishing operational communications to prevent incidents on the contact line of troops and on the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Baku and global community have reacted very positively to the rhetoric of Armenian leadership. Many experts also expressed views that these talks would contribute to the solution of the conflict.
On the background of certain positivity and hope that Armenia would strive to peaceful negotiations aimed at the conflict resolution, political situation inside Armenia has flared up. There are even rumors and talks that civil war might break out there. Can it be coincidence that these two events took place almost at the same time? Unlikely.
There can be only one conclusion – the settlement of the Karabakh conflict and strong Caucasus region are not profitable for certain forces inside or, maybe, outside Armenia. Apparently, Baku and Yerevan have still a lot to overcome in order to bring peace and stability to the region.