Interview With RA NA President Artur Baghdasaryan

- How do you evaluate the 15-year activity of the parliament, first of all, as a former MP, then as a committee chairman, and finally – NA President?

- The history of the independent Armenia and the history of the Armenian parliaments are naturally identified. The 12 clauses of the “Declaration on the Independence of the Republic of Armenia” adopted on May 20, 1990 and June 3 by elected Supreme Soviet were the beginning of the formation of the state and public order. Then the referendum of independence was held, which declared Armenia as an independent state, hundreds of laws were passed, post of the president of the republic was defined and the Constitution was adopted…Everybody bears the history of those years in his/her memory and soul, because those years have been hard years of self-establishment of our statehood and confrontation of experiences, but at the same time victorious years. Of course, there have been mistakes, cold and dark, mass burglary of state property and collapse of the economy, but today there is independent Armenia with its developing economy, international recognition and I consider that the main achievement of 15 years. The parliament, eventually, is the mirror of the society, the main bearer and mouthpiece of public moods, and while evaluating the activity of the parliament one should be led by this very criteria. Undoubtedly, I can say that the passed 15 years of the parliament have been a weighty contribution to the formation of statehood. The result of the good and bad, evil and kind, the work done and the upcoming works enables us to say that passing through numerous difficulties the legislative power of the country is fully formed and brings its contribution to the strengthening and development of the Republic of Armenia. The memory of the people is the archive, where nothing gets lost, but the memory has the right of choice, and it would be better that along with the negative things we’ll remember the good things, eventually, I believe that the people prefer to remember the good and kind…And on the occasion of this festivity I don’t wish to speak about the mistakes, finally, nobody is free from mistakes and isn’t guaranteed. Being a deputy of three convocations of the parliament and the President of the National Assembly of the third convocation, I can say that I always was led by the principle of the rule of law. And that I considered my, as the deputy’s, main work, to promote the creation of the effective laws at utmost and establishing the atmosphere, where those laws can be in force. I think that this way of thinking, eventually, prevailed in our activity.

- According to you, during the period of the activity of which parliament was the political palette more vividly expressed?

- I think, in all, simply different times different demands were presented to that political palette. There weren’t parties formed during the election of the Supreme Council, if we don’t take into account the Communist party, then the traditional parties returned to the motherland, and the process of the formation of new parties partially continued till now…So, the parliament has always been a structure expressing the political palette, that’s another problem what colour and colourings had that palette. I think that all the convocations of the parliament had its unique style and made its contribution to the building of our statehood.

- To what extent can be considered the present parliament the continuer of the predecessors’ traditions?

- In my speeches I always emphasize that the evidence of the success is also to follow the sequence of the generations and the idea of consent. Every new generation doesn’t begin the life from scratch, but it becomes the continuation of its predecessors, also making the road for the next generation. Just like that is the parliament, the main function of which is to make laws, the improvement of the acting laws and, if it’s necessary, elaborate the new laws. In this way, all the parliaments of Armenia are closely linked with each other. Of course, I don’t want to simplify the question and answer how many legislative initiatives got transferred from the second convocation of the National Assembly to the third one. I find that the main tradition is preserved, and that is the adoption of the laws and being the evidence of the political stability, which has been and is, and we hope, will be. Going on with already rooted traditions, every parliament brings its word, its continuity.

- In 1995 there was also constitutional atmosphere in the parliament. What comparison can you make between the parliamentary discussions of that period and today’s?

- The Constitution adopted by referendum in 1995 did its mission in the first decade of our life, and proposed outcomes during the numerous experiences facing the country. But eventually, the life goes forward, and all the newly independent and developing states come across with the necessity of the adoption of constitutional amendments or the new constitution. The developments of political, economic, inner and external life of the country create preconditions and possibilities for making progress. In 1995 they had hundreds of discussions in the parliament and the very version of the Constitution was adopted, based on the level of political forces and the general political and economic challenges of the country. Today, we have another situation: today we can make a step, such an important step that will create opportunities for further progress. Today, the decentralization of the power, the specification of the functions of its wings and the establishment of the balance became more possible, today’s imperative is to have effective mechanisms for the protection of human and citizen’s rights, as well as independent judicial system. The last 15 years showed that the strong parliament means a political system anchored on strong democracy and pluralism, i.e. the increase of the powers of the parliament is the demand of the time. All the other laws emanate from the Basic Law of the country, and we can’t comply our laws with the acting criteria in the civilized and democratic countries without elimination of constitutional obstacles and without establishment of the norms harmonizing with new realities. Eventually, the democracy is, first of all, a law, but not an exclusion from laws. And that’s also the reason that we should start from the Basic Law of our country. Besides, we have also undertaken an obligation before CE on making constitutional amendments, what we are doing in order to make the Basic Law of our country in compliance with new realities of our country and European standards. The world community promotes those reforms, and we shall not forget that not fulfilling those obligations will result in numerous negative consequences for the country, which I consider not only right, moreover – unfavourable in the aspect of further developments. When a few months ago the international structures were criticizing the constitutional amendments, that we don’t want implement completely, there were forces, which were criticizing us, why those proposals were not accepted. Now, those proposals were adopted, we have consensus with international experts, and we shall do our best to have the reforms free, transparent and in compliance with international standards.

- One of the important missions of the third convocation of the parliament was the elaborations and adoption of the draft constitutional reforms. Many condition the positive result of the draft referendum by the right organization of the campaign. How do you appreciate the process of the campaign?

- The right organization of the campaign is really of great importance. Eventually, the constitutional reforms refer to our country and people, but not the powers or the opposition. It’s very important that each family, social layer, really be aware of the content of the constitutional reforms. Different approaches and different stances can always be, it’s very important that we can give people an opportunity of free election. Eventually, the democracy is also a right: to make erroneous choice, but the main thing is that we could explain the people the real importance of the reforms, that the citizens would make appropriate choice, according to that. I also consider important the existence of appropriate atmosphere.

- Before the beginning of the campaign you expressed an opinion that the headquarters of the campaign shall preside a person, who enjoys respect in the society, and it would be better to choose an art worker. But a political figure was chosen, your party friend Mher Shahgeldyan. What was it conditioned by?

- First, I’ll specify: not the headquarters of the campaign, but the coordinating council. And that council today is working, working as effectively as possible and three coalition parties are represented there. The choice of Mher Shahgeldyan, but not the art worker, was the political decision of the coalition and the President of the republic. “Orinats Yerkir” (Country of Law) never evaded the responsibility and tried to take up to the end the whole started works to the extent of the possibilities. I also think that in this case Mher Shageldyan’s choice was conditioned also by his organizational skills and not bribed, clever, balanced political character that he has among the political forces and society.

- According to you, does the opposition condition his attitude towards constitutional reforms more by own interests or is concerned by the fate of the country?

- When I made an appeal of tolerance and friendship, I meant that at the moment of solving vital problems for the country we should give priority to the interests of state and people. But in the political field and political fighting the parties are led by their viewpoints and ideas. I don’t think that the power and the opposition are separated from each other by irreversible obstacles: Armenia is a small country for having many and narrow interests. I think that both the power and the opposition are really concerned by the fate of the country: simply they see the solutions of the same problem in different ways. Of course, in the opposition there are also extreme stances, there are constructive approaches, speculations. I, who always defended the constructive approaches, know at the same time, that eventually every political force decides itself the tactics and strategy of its activity, we shall be able to approach with understanding to every political stance. I think myself that it’s much more right that the constitutional reforms will have positive outcome because all the forces, who are interested in the deepening of democratic reforms in the country, shall be for the power decentralization, the Ombudsman appointed by the parliament, the independence of the judicial power, the increase of the role of the parliament, etc…

- The parliament has already managed to pass the 2006 draft state budget. In your opinion, does the draft sufficiently provide solutions to the social problems?

- For the first time, the draft state budget crosses the threshold of one billion by expenditure part, which is the evidence of the economic development of Armenia. Of course, it could be more, if the tax and customs administration would be made stricter, if the corruption would be reduced with consecutive steps, if there were real opportunities for the development of small and medium entrepreneurship, the row of these “ifs” can be continued for a long time. And it means that there is much to do, they are things for everybody, because nobody will solve our problems for us. I think that in 2006 really it will be possible to solve many social problems. Within the frameworks of the “Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper” program 1bn AMD is allocated for the return of the frozen deposits, and this touches upon the interests of the whole population. And, first of all, the interests of beneficiaries, pensioners, the disabled, participants of the Great Patriotic war, those people, who today need more to find again the year-long earnings. Rather big indexation of the return of deposits is defined, the second in the whole area of the USSR, and it means that jointly with the political forces the possible best solution of the problem is found today. It is also fixed that in 2007 and in upcoming years not less than 1bn drams will be allocated for the return of the deposits. I consider it a concrete step directed to the solution of important and social problems.

- From the day of the formation of the coalition they regularly speak about the collapse of the latter. Are you pleased with the results of cooperation within the frameworks of coalition? They also say that the coalition will live till 2007. Do you share that opinion?

- More than two years have passed from signing of memorandum of coalition, the coalition exists, works, fulfills the role undertaken in the system of governing management. At this moment I don’t see an issue that can become a reason for the coalition’s sudden death. Yes, there were disagreements, and there are, but they wouldn’t be, there wouldn’t be three parties, but a party, which will decide everything and fulfill, as it was in the USSR, we’ve already overcome that stage. The pluralism, the comparison of the viewpoints and contradicting them, is the best possibility for finding right solutions. I consider natural that coalition would survive till the next parliamentary elections. In future, there can be other developments. The political predictions are ungrateful occupation: the parliamentary elections and the year 2007 are not behind 7 mountains. The time, eventually, has a unique ability of persuading, and we shall do our best to use that time to deepen the democratic reforms in the country, to develop the economic and social progress, and eventually, for creating competitive and organized country.

Gayane Gasparyan