Open news feed Close news feed
A A

VENETIAN COMMISSION FINDS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IMPERFECT

Politics

Correspondent: What the commission opinion of the bills was?

V.P.: The commission opinion can’t be called positive or negative, because Venetian Commission is a European institution and, as a rule, its remarks are worded diplomatically. However, if we put the diplomacy to one side and look at the essence, we’ll see the commission has made it clear that all the proposals submitted since 2001 had nothing in common with constitutional reforms. The commission also says if Armenian authorities, opposition and community want to reach some consensus on the constitutional amendments, they should take the 2001 version as a basis. Besides, the commission says power division between legislative and executive bodies should be very precise.

Correspondent: Does it mean none of the three bills submitted specifies clear power division?

V.P.: It was said in the bill worked out by the ruling coalition that National Assembly plays no part in government-forming process. The commission voiced its disapproval at that and noted with satisfaction that Arshak Sadoyan’s bill provide some government-forming powers to legislative body. What about Gurgen Arsenyan’s version, the commission noted it showed a close resemblance to the 2001 bill. Merely processes and mechanisms are different. Arsenyan leaves the right to dismiss PM the president enjoys currently unchanged while the right to dismiss the premier is the key difference between the old system remaining only in Armenia, Russia and until recently in Ukraine and European one. There is another thing in Arsenyan’s project that prompted the commission discontent. This is the president’s right to dismiss National Assembly if his decision to sack the premier runs into objections from the parliament.

In Venetian Commission’s opinion, the president should be stripped of his sweeping powers to dismiss the government and National Assembly should play leading part in that.

Correspondent: What do you think, which of these three drafts complies with Venice commission demands.

V.P.: None of them was singled out by the commission. The commission just said that the bill submitted in 2001 was well-worked-out proposal, however, pointing out a number of controversial and dimly-worded provisions. It means the 2001 draft constitution is imperfect, but unlike these three bills, contains more clear idea about powers division between legislative and executive institutions.