After the massive “rat race” of MPs leaving this or that National Assembly faction, parliamentarians are starting to express their opinions. They believe that it would be moral for the MPs, who have been elected based on a proportional list and leave the faction, to drop their mandates. They’re starting to remember the law passed back in 1995 during the first National Assembly session. According to that regulatory law, the MP elected from the proportional list must drop his mandate if he leaves the synonymous faction.
But in 1997, through the combined efforts of David Shahnazaryan and Edward Egoryan, that clause was taken out of the law and the “rat race” began. The majority of Republican MPs left the faction overnight and founded the “Land Defenders” union. The recent “rat race” of the Rule of Law party members made the MPs feel the need of passing such a regulatory law once again. Of course, the MPs on the proportional list say that they have “paid” thousands of dollars just to be enlisted. So, after being elected, they don’t have a sense of responsibility for the faction and can leave just like that without dropping the mandate because they have simply “bought it”.
What’s interesting is that Rule of Law is the only MP faction against the demand to drop the mandates when 9 MPs immediately left in a matter of days. During an interview, MP Gagik Avetyan, who had been elected as member of the party based on the proportional list and remains in the Rule of Law faction, told “168 Hours”:
“I am against having the MP drop his mandate just because he leaves the faction, despite the fact that he has been elected based on a majority or the proportional list. The MP has been elected by the people.”
According to Gagik Avetyan, the MP has to decide for himself whether or not he wants to drop his mandate. “168 Hours” asked G. Avetyan whether he was still of that opinion after what happened with his faction, to which he replied:
“It wouldn’t be morally right for us to pressure people, much less MPs. In that case, the MP will turn into a robot that will do whatever you tell it to do. He will simply be under the pressure of the party and the political field. It is much more immoral to put pressure on a person’s freedom than simply making speeches about morality,” says the MP.
It’s obvious that the Rule of Law still hasn’t learned its lessons even after what happened. Meanwhile, it’s surprising to see leader of the Armenian Republican Party faction Galust Sahakyan and the parliamentary opposition, especially the “Justice” alliance, agree on the same thing. I must say that this is truly unique.
“If orientation changes halfway along the road for principles and ideas, then the MP must certainly drop his mandate. I am in favor of that,” he said.
But according to Sahakyan, it would be better to apply the clause during the next National Assembly session.
“I am against changing the rules of the game halfway,” said G. Sahakyan and added that there is no danger facing the Armenian Republican faction.
Representative of the “Justice” alliance, MP Grigor Harutyunyan is bringing up the example of the Russian State Duma, where just recently, Russian parliamentarians suggested passing a law according to which the MP elected from a proportional list doesn’t have the right to change his faction, otherwise he will be forced to drop his mandate.
“Russia solved the problem the right way-it keeps human rights. You may leave the party, but you can’t leave the State Duma faction,” says G. Harutyunyan. The latter added that it is quite possible that his party comes up with such a proposal during the discussions on the reforms of the voting code.
“This can be solved by the voting code. We can bring that issue up during the discussions,” he said.
However, according to vice-speaker of the National Assembly Vahan Hovhannisyan, there may be a problem here.
“The ARF has always been in favor of passing a law like that and we believe that it is the right solution. But we can’t bring that back now because it goes against the Constitution of Armenia. We weren’t able to convince our colleagues to give us the opportunity of including that clause in the Constitution. Now, the Constitution states that there is no imperative mandate. This is the problem,” he said and added that lawyers can explain more about that.
However, according to head of the National Assembly’s constant committee on state legal issues Raffik Petrosyan, the constitutional clause doesn’t go against punishing the MP. He believes that the clause must first be passed in the voting code.
“We can define a law in the voting code, according to which the MP elected from a proportional list, who leaves the faction, is obligated to drop his mandate. Afterwards, that clause must be included in the National Assembly’s regulatory law,” says R. Petrosyan.
According to him, the MPs have always felt the need of passing that law after each “rat race”, but none of them have taken a step.
“I can’t do that by myself. It would be good if faction leaders made a suggestion. I can make the suggestion, but I don’t want it to be looked at as the proposal I made back when I suggested making the MP untouchable,” complains R. Petrosyan.
So, judging from the situation at hand, MPs can make this kind of suggestion during the upcoming reforms made to the voting code and the National Assembly regulatory law. This will then hold back any shocking events from taking place in the political field.