– Although you assure that you are simply helping the parliament get out of the current situation, “Rule of Law” party members say that you are making “massive replacements”. Furthermore, Mher Shahgeldyan assures that the parliament has over 600 employees, among which there are representatives of the ARF, the Armenian National Movement (ANM) and the Armenian Republican Party (ARP) as well. According to him, this is a result of the fact that Arthur Baghdasaryan did not replace the representatives of the previous powers during his term as parliament chairman. Do you still think that what you’re doing is not making “massive replacements”.
– It’s clear that I’m not the only one saying that and it’s logical that the political parties shouldn’t be concerned about what happened to the former MPs. If I punished certain people and representatives of specific political parties, then they would have the right ot say that I am going against those people and thus against their parties, but I haven’t done such a thing. That was all aimed towards improving the institutional capacity of the parliament members and some departments were simply disbanded If there are people that say that this is a problem concerning parties and that most of those people represented certain parties, then they must explain why the party members were given those positions. If an institution is disbanded, the problem is with the institution in general, but not with the people that work in those institutions. Everyone should understand this simple fact. I think that the announcements saying that most of the people that lost their jobs were members of “Rule of Law” affects their reputation more, because by saying such things they make it clear that those institutions were politicized and most of the employees there were representatives of “Rule of Law”. To be honest with you, I don’t even know how many of them were members of that party. I have talked to the heads of those departments and they told me that they represented the RL, but it didn’t matter to me when disbanding those departments. In a word, to say that disbanding departments means “massive replacements” means to agree that those departments were politicized. It did not matter to me. For me it is important as to how those departments work in the parliament and how effectively they work. I am surprised at the people who say such things because to say that disbanding departments is targeted against some parties means to say that those departments were politicized and were connected with certain political parties. At first, they said that we were replacing the personnel with members of the ARP, but later they understood that after disbanding those departments neither the members of the ARP nor any other party could work there. They finally understood that the ARP doesn’t play a role in that process at all. When they understood that this trick was baseless, they started saying that it was a “party replacement”. What’s very interesting is that nobody has the brought up arguments to approve that those departments played a major role and that the parliament was in favor of the work they were doing. They were speaking about problems concerning parties all the time. What does that have to do with the parties?
– Do you think the explanation of the RL saying that those departments helped raise the parliament’s reputation is absurd?
– It is absurd to speak about reputation. The first main purpose of the MPs is to work effectively at the parliament. There are no other problems. Definitely, the decisions to disband certain departments should be made based on the fact on how important the existence of that department is and whether their work is effective or not.
– Were there members of other parties in those departments besides RL members?
– I was not interested in thinking about how many of them were party representatives. I think that it would be a violation of the labor code of Armenia to treat employees based on what party they belong to. It is illegal.
– Are there any ARP or ARF members that lost their jobs?
– No. Only one person has complained so far, and that person dealt with responding to letters sent to the parliament speaker, but forty employees were replaced. Before replacing them I called them, brought up issue-based arguments and told them that I had to replace them because I was responsible for the work of the parliament at the time. The others asked only one question; they wanted to know what would happen to the people who had worked at the parliament for several years and had experience. In other words, they didn’t complain about the real reason for disbanding those departments. As for that question, I told them that it was a continuous process and after the first phase was over, we would reconsider the free spots at the departments and contact them if there are any free places. I told them that I appreciated their work and I didn’t doubt their qualifications and professioanlism. Before doing so I discussed that issue with the heads of all the factions, parliamentary groups and their leaders. We have informed the RL representatives as well. If they had any issues, they could come and make their arguments in the presence of their colleagues. They didn’t take part in those discussions and there was no one that didn’t agree with our decision, in other words, they all agreed that those departments didn’t help the parliament. All the other announcements are baseless. Furthermore, those announcements go against the Rule of Law because it is absurd to tie the structural changes with party interests. To tie the two together means to say that the departments were politicized. All I did does not concern any parties at all; each official should do his job. If each person does his job, we will appreciate that, if that person doesn’t, he will have to give explanations regardless of which party he represents.
– Mher Shahgeldyan said that during the past three years, you have been in ongoing contact with former chairman of the National Assembly and you haven’t said that there is no need for those departments; furthermore, you took part in discussions with those people. He also said that from the human and moral point of view, it would be better if you had informed him about the replacements before actually doing anything. He also reminded that A. Baghdasaryan had advocated your candidacy in spite of all the things that the press was writing about you. Why didn’t you follow the ethical norms as Mher Shahgeldyan says?
– First, I have never worked with those departments and I didn’t have to work with them either. In a word, no one can speak on behalf of me and say that I have worked with them because I really haven’t. One of the reasons that I didn’t work with those departments is the fact that they didn’t play any role in the parliament. This means that it was unreasonable to work with them. Second, during the whole time that I worked for Arthur Baghdasaryan, there hasn’t been a time that I haven’t expressed my opinion when he has asked me for it. No one else but the speaker is responsible for coordinating the MPs in doing their jobs. He didn’t have to ask me that, I don’t mind, but I never express my opinion about what other people are supposed to do if nobody asks me for my opinion. If they ask me, I will speak, if not – I will not. My opinion is different concerning different issues because we are all different people. I think that it is right to consult with factions and deputy groups before making a decision, which I did. I could do that myself because I have a right to do so, but I thought it important to consult with them as well. We haven’t discussed anything with Arthur Baghdasaryan concerning those departments. I think it would not be correct of me to interfere in the speaker’s activities. Third, I think that the fact that he advocated my candidacy was a result of our fruitful work and cooperation throughout the past years. I believe that both the society and deputies have seen that I don’t change my principles upon getting a new position. Furthermore, I believe that when advocating my candidacy the RL trusted me, but didn’t trade so that I could give something instead later. I believe that it was their true belief and decision. I think that such ideas saying that they have advocated me and I should do something instead is insulting them first of all, because I really believe that there were people among the RL representatives that really didn’t make transactions when advocating my candidacy. What should I do after being elected speaker? Should I leave everything as it is or should I make my own decisions and see what is more applicable and effective in these conditions? I said that we had discussed that issue and there was no one that would speak against that decision and say that there is need to keep those departments. However, if there is a party that thinks there are problems, that’s their business. I can’t work here for the purpose of satisfying the needs of parties. I am responsible for the parliament and to the society for the work I am doing that regardless of how long I will stay here; people are responsible even for one day. I don’t have any problems with the RL or with A. Baghdasaryan. I have the same opinion about them as before the changes, while some members of their party have really violated ethical norms.
– Was this the first thing you thought that was important after being elected speaker of the parliament?
– No, it was not the first thing I did. We did different things parallel to that process. This is neither the first nor the last thing that we are doing. In fact, I have spoken about my approach before being elected, so it is not a secret for anyone. Each position should be identified with the specific responsibilities and the job to be done.
– M. Shahgeldyan also said that he didn’t understand what you had found in the committee of the Armenian-Russian inter-regional activity that served as a reason for disbanding it. He also said that when A. Baghdasaryan mentioned his positive approach for NATO, he was accused of expressing an anti-Russian approach, but you disbanded the pro-Russian department after he founded it along with the Russian federal council. Do you see any logical arguments here?
– First, the arguments connected with NATO are nonsense. I haven’t said anything concerning their approach to NATO and I don’t want to say anything either. It is their business; parties can have their own approaches. However, there is something illogical there; it is really illogical to tie the problems of a NGO with a country. What does Russia have to do with all this? The problem is the internal life of our country and money circulation; furthermore, that money is given from the budget of the parliament. This looks like a dispute but I don’t think there is anyone that really believes this trick and may say that that was targeted against Russia. Generally, when speaking about logical arguments they should have logical arguments to present.
– There are rumors saying that if political powers present a bill advocating a 100% minority basis election system, the ARP will come up with its own recommendation with a 52/75 proportion of places and do its best to adopt it. Is it true?
– There is already a bill like that. Recently, we were asked many questions concerning a 100% minority basis election system. Recently, there were discussions dedicated to that issue, but we came to a consensus with the political powers and decided to increase the number of minority basis places, but not to increase so much as the 100% system has. This was just a political agreement. There were no questions in the conclusions asking whether the mentioned system would support fair elections or not. That issue is not discussed now either. Accordingly, it is logical that the political powers are following their agreement and promises; I don’t see any problems here. Nevertheless, it is clear that the powers trying to revise the mentioned agreement should consider the fact that the people that did what they did based on the questions and arguments may act positively this time and nothing will change. If they don’t keep their promises, each person will keep his approach and nothing will change. As for the future, it depends on whether the political powers will keep their agreements and promises or not. As for the ARP, it will discuss and speak about its approach later. Generally, we think that agreements and promises should be kept. Generally, agreements and compromises are the most important tools in politics aimed towards finding really good solutions.