The “Pressing” club adjacent to “168 Hours” newspaper organized a discussion on the topic of the proportion of the parliamentary majority and minority basis elections. In this framework the political parties have different viewpoints; some of them think that 100% minoritarian elections will be effective, while others think that Armenia should keep the majoritarian system of elections. The organizers had invited representatives from political parties and NA factions, however there were only two parties there; the Armenian Republican Party and the Armenian Naitonal Movement (ANM).
The speaker vice-chief editor of “168 Hours”, Armen Baghdasaryan spoke about the arguments and viewpoints of the advocates of the majoritarian and minoritarian systems of elections. “The advocates of the majoritarian system have two arguments. First, even though it is good to have a majoriatarian system of elections since the deputies want to represent their districts, Armenia is not developed yet at the level necessary for transforming to that system of elections. Secondly, it contradicts the Constitution since it provides that each citizen of Armenia has a right to be elected, while based on the majoritarian system only the citizens included in majoritarian lists of parties will be entitled to that right”, said A. Baghdasaryan. The latter said that the advocates of fully majoritarian system think that the activities of NA deputies are of political character and thus parties should be involved in political activities. As for the minoritarian elections, the experience shows that in most cases some powerful personalities that are known in communities (tough guys) and have financial and other resources may be elected. A. Baghdasaryan said that there is another way too, according to which the proportion of the majoritarian and minoritarian places is not so important, the most important point is the importance of reforming the political field in general.
NA deputy, Republican Armen Ashotyan explained why their party was against the 100% minoritarian elections system. He brought several arguments. “First, there isn’t any universal method for forming a parliament. There are western democracies, where they have fully majoritarian, minoritarian and a mixed system of election. To say that fully minoritarian elections are democratic and the majoritarian elections are not is a tool for competition” says the deputy. He doesn’t think that it is normal that parties founded a year before elections can be elected in the parliament. Mr. Ashotyan said that now the number of political parties is much more than the social and political demand of the society, thus the parties are losing their role. “I understand the fact that the ANM may speak about the system of fully minoritarian elections since they have lived and survived during different phases. However, I don’t understand why the new parties are talking about that” said the deputy.
“For instance let’s say that we have that system of fully minoritarian elections. It turns out that if we want to get free of people that have appeared in politics by chance, parties may not include some of the political elite representatives in their lists. In this case they will break the contact between the regions and Yerevan. To break that connection and not to represent the interests of the regions in the parliament means to create a fake institution that doesn’t do its real political and economic functions. It turns out that we will have parallel elite groups. In that case people that are not famous in their communities and cannot represent their interests in the parliament may be elected” said A. Ashotyan and added that such persons really exist in our reality and if we let them enter the parliament they may create “a shady parliament”. “Why do you need those people?” asked A. Baghdasaryan. According to the deputy, all political formulas should represent the approach of the society to the political institution and the state. “If you are blocking the entrance of local elite representatives in the parliament you are creating a fake parliament that will be too far from the tendencies in the society during these 5-10 years” said A. Ashotyan.
The head of “P-Art” company, Karen Kocharyan said that he would agree with Mr. Ashotyan if the deputies elected in regions would not become citizens of Yerevan fast and would not end their contacts with the regions. Furthermore, the latter said that many citizens of Yerevan have run in the regions and elected there too.
The ANM advocates the system of 100% minoritarian elections. “Otherwise, it is clear that there may be small local rules, which may have big influence in the given communities. The latter said that he didn’t agree with the note “local elite”. At leats, thy are becoming powerful and thus having more influence in the country, as a result of which there may be a big social loss if this process goes on long”said the head of the ANM, Ararat Zurabyan. The latter said that the existing parties are informed very well and when making their lists they will take the mentioned persons from the regions in their lists too. “Since the time when Robert Kocharyan said that his party is the people, people have understood that it can never happen. Everyone should have his/her own viewpoints”, said Mr. Zurabyan and brought the example of the “People’s Deputy” faction and said that now they are negotiating on joining political parties.
Concerning the viewpoint of A. Baghdasaryan, saying that the minoritarian system contradicts the Constitution, the head of ANM board said that if there is a limitation that deputies can be elected after 2, there can be another limitation too.
Deputy Head of the ANM board, Khachatour Kokobelyan thinks that “there is no need to make politicians from elite representatives and bring them to the parliament”. The latter thinks that other people may use their financial means and other tools to be nominated in the 41 precincts of Armenia and thus will block the way for politicians to the parliament. “For instance, I think that it will be very bad if such a serious politician as Vazgen Manoukyan may lose the elections while competing with a businessman. This system of minoritarian elections has two goals: to create fake activation in the parliament and partially solve political party problems” said Kh. Kokobelyan.
Mr. Ashotyan said that their party had applied for becoming a national party advocating the interests of representatives of big businesses. “We want to become a party of employers and are working to reach that goal. The political sector of the ARP is mixed with the big business sectors and it turns out that we have a group that represents the interests of both political and financial groups” said the deputy. A. Zurabyan asked surprisingly how they were going to protect their interests and from whom (from the society or from the state?). “We don’t want to protect their interests against the society or against the state, we are going to represent their interests in the society and in the state” said the republican deputy.
During the debate A. Baghdasaryan noted a fact. The Republican party was given 23% of votes on minority basis, nevertheless it had 30,5% in the parliament. “In other words, even if the elections are democratic and fair the political profile of the parliament does not correspond to the existing political formula” said A. Baghdasaryan. Mr. Ashotyan brought an argument and said that their party had won 17 places out of 56 majoritarian places and thus it received 31% of votes, i.e. the republicans in the regions were given more votes than those that were elected on minority basis. However, it is not clear which of those percentages is considered as a real rating of the party but not reality in the top (23% or 31%?). “The candidates that are going to run on majority basis can be nominated on the basis of their civic initiative or by political parties. The second version is an attribute to improving the regional chapters of parties as well”
Concerning the “local elite” the chief editor of “168 Hours”, Satik Seiranyan said to the ANM representatives that their party had brought such people to the parliament too (for instance, Souren Khchatryan, nickname is Liska). Karen Kocharyan reminded the name of Never Chakhoyan to Ararat Zurabyan too. Mr. Zurabyan said that it had been their party’s fault and added that parties should not make the same mistake. S. Seiranyan noted as well that many parties, especially the newly established parties, advocate the system of fully minoritarian elections due to the fact that they don’t have enough human resources to nominate in the regions. “Do you think it is right on the part of the parliament to reflect the real appearance of the society? Do you think that drug addicts or and ponces should be electe din the parliament if they are majority in the society? Do you think that now the parliament should create a law prohibiting drug addicts and ponces be elected in the parliament if one day they become majority in the society?” said the chief editor of “Yerevan” journal, Ida Martirosyan.
Mr. Ashotyan said that in that framework it is better to think not about the quality of the parliament, but about the development level of the society generally.
During the discussion the participants discussed different issues, however mostly they were concentrated on their favority issues; powerful, famous personalities in regions and communities, etc. “I haven’t seen anyone of the local powerful persons in Karabakh, nevertheless they managed to do something and buy cars and become tough guys in Yerevan. They should understand one thing; they are not tough guys, they are scary because they don’t walk alone in Yerevan” said Arart Zurabyan honestly.
Concerning the “shady parliament” spoken by A. Ashotyan politician Tigran Hakobyan suggested that the local elite groups could create a new law, which could influence on “bad parliaments” by lobbying. “By calling criminal adjacent groups as elite we are creating a policy that is born from a degradated economy” said T. Hakobyan.
Mr. Ashotyan thinks that if the way of local elite representatives to policy is blocked it will be more difficult for them to be integrated in civic institutions.
Member of “Alternative” civic initiative group David Matevosyan (was NA deputy in 1995-99), who had come up with a similar recommendation for the parliament in the past, said that the mentioned recommendation was ignored in 1998, which contradicted the NA by-laws. The latter said that the Republican party had liked that bill and advocated it. “I proposed a system that was majoritarian formally, but contained minoritarian election system. In case of majoritarian system the role of personalities in precints places bigger role than the role of parties. Proxies of parties always may change their policy and credo. According to that draft law, candidates had to be nominated by parties, but not on their own initiative. The voter lists had to be made according to alphabet letters so that not to provide privileged positions for anyone. For instance, if the 20% of the 131 places in the parliament is filled by representatives of the same party, it means that the given party will have 20% in the parliament” said D. Matevosyan.
Most of the participants agreed with Ashotyan’s viewpoint that the discussions on the topic of majoritarian and minoritarian electoral systems may dispute us and drive far from the core issue, which is to provide fairness and legitimacy for the upcoming elections. Mr. Ashotyan said that the Republican party was not going to change its policy and would never advocate the system of 100% minoritarian elections. Karen Kocharyan made a remark that the elections of 1990 that were fully majoritarian were much democratic than the Constitutional referendum of 2005, which was in fact a majoritarian model and was violated. Publicist Tigran Paskevichyan thinks that there is no need to change the proportion of electoral procedures. “During these 8-10 years nothing has changed in the political field but annihilating a part of the political powers and violating elections. Anyhow, in this pre-election period I see only one tendency in policy; it is the tendency of “reproduction”. When speaking about that elite group I imagine a blocked territory, where the other people and me can’t enter and be involved. Those elite groups need to legimize the borders of that territory. This reproduction cannot be undermined by neither 75/56 nor 90/41 proportion, it can’t be stopped by 100% minoritarian elections either. The reason of the mentioned idea is the fact that the existing rules of game driving us to that”, said the publicist.