Last year the supporters of the Constitutional Referendum among other reasons were mentioning the opportunity of having an elected Mayor for Yerevan.
Article 108 of the Constitution used to read, “Yerevan has a status of a marz” and clearly defined that the mayor is being appointed and resigned by the President of RA. In the newly amended Constitution the same article was changed in the following way, “Yerevan has a status of a community”. “Yerevan is a community. The formation of local governments in Yerevan are defined by law. The law may define direct of indirect election of the mayor of Yerevan.” And now when it’s time to adopt a law to regulate the requirements of Article 108, things get even more complicated.
The next in turn topic of discussion of the “Pressing” Club was dedicated to those issues and took place on December 19.
Former chief-architect of Yerevan, Narek Sargsyan, informed that the government about seven months ago established a committee to elaborate a law on Yerevan, which had one concrete recommendation in the agenda – indirect elections. This means that an election of general avagani (community council) takes place and this avagani board elects the Mayor. “There was also another option – direct elections of the Mayor. Those two models exist within the committee and they are to discuss this,” said Sargsyan, who thinks that the indirect election will extremely weaken the governance of the city. The architect thinks that in order to make the governance of Yerevan more optimal it’s necessary to pay attention to the fact that currently Yerevan is not a joint urban system. “Even if I don’t go very deep into details and only mention the fact of Noubarashen and a few other villages included in Yerevan, we will all understand that the borders of Yerevan are not clearly defined yet,” said Sargsyan.
RA President’s advisor on local government issues, Seyran Avagyan reminded that according to Article 108 of the Constitution, the local governance of Yerevan is going to have certain specifications. “Those are two global issues – local governance specifications and peculiarities of formation of governance bodies. And today, unfortunately, there is no broad discussion of those issues. The Constitution states that the mechanisms of uniting and separating the RA communities are solved by the recommendations of the government. One of the clauses is the referendum. If the government makes such a recommendation a referendum must be held.”
“During numerous discussions of the mentioned issues and the mentioned article of the Constitution the presenters were always insisting that the article enables to have a two-level local government,” reminded the President of the Union of Community Financiers, Vahan Movsisyan. According to the latter, once the discussions became more active the experts realized that Article 108 might cause various disputes and contradictions. “I met Fuhrman about a week ago, the professional background of who is well-known. We have taken the text of the RA Constitution translated into German. Fuhrman said that such a formulation will not allow Yerevan having a two-level local governance,” informed Movsisyan.
According to NA Deputy, chairman of the NDP, Shavarsh Kocharyan, the idea of local governamnet is signified by the fact that it must be close to the resident. “For example, to have one local government in Yerevan, which has 1 million population,” said Kocharyan. “The marzpet (governor) is only the eyes of the government. It must not be authorized too much and cannot be involved in local government issues,” said Kocharyan. According to him the solution of the issue is the following – local governments must have two levels everywhere. “The most unfortunate thing is that the new constitution is trying to solve this issue but in fact it confuses the situation even more. The best scenario would be to make certain changes and hold a referendum. Otherwise we won’t be able to solve the problem,” said Kocharyan and added that artificial solutions may doubt the reputation of the Constitution.
Member of the board of the Union of Community Financiers (UCF), Sos Gimishyan, reminded that the drafts developed by both the President and the NA included a provision on neighborhood communities in Yerevan. According to Gimishyan this provision was important because it would automatically solve the issue of two-level governance. He also mentioned that they were struggling to ensure that the phrase “may” is taken out from the provision. However the part regarding neighborhood communities was totally cut from the provision and instead written “specifications”. According to Gimishyan the Constitution clearly defines that Yerevan is a community. Thus there can be no other elective communities with their budgets within the community. “One thing is clearly understood. There must be a single elective body – Yerevan Council. There might be direct election of the Mayor by the residents of Yerevan or the Council may elect somebody else nominated from outside. The Constitution enables this version as well,” said Gimishyan. He thinks that it would be much better if we had things written down about neighborhood communities and now we would have to levels. He believes it would solve all the problems.
Anahit Tarkhanyan (“Our City” NGO) advised to pay attention to the mechanism of governance of London. “We have local government and London City. The latter is realizes all the economic issues of the city. This facilitates the governance overall. We have state bodies and a private organization, which has been managing the economic issues for over 200 years. Maybe we should think about this?” offered Tarkhanyan.
Seyran Avagyan thinks that over the period of several years an institute of neighborhood communities has gradually been formed. “I don’t think that there will be anyone in Armenia, who would destroy the current system of management overnight, which had been serving the residents for many years. I don’t think it’s possible,” says Avagyan. The latter doesn’t think that the approaches will be revolutionary.
President of the “Hayk” regional research institute, YSU docent, Maxim Manasyan, thinks that the Constitution has brought this issue into a dead-lock and it’s impossible to have a double-level governance in Yerevan. “Of course it wasn’t a desirable change. There were other recommendations but unfortunately this one was chosen,” said Manasyan and added that the previous option was much worse, according to which there was nothing said about Yerevan being an integrate organism, with a separate budget and elective communities, etc. “All the appointed mayors were speaking about the adoption of a law on Yerevan’s status as they felt that they didn’t have sufficient authority to normally govern Yerevan,” said Manasyan and added that in past a law on the status of Yerevan was written and was consented on in the Yerevan City Board. “Our law was anticipating direct election of the Mayor and a dual-level management. That’s what we are dreaming of right now. Unfortunately the Constitution has totally destroyed that and now we have information about that law only in our archives. Too bad the Constitution doesn’t give such opportunities now.” Manasyan, however, thinks that everything is not so bad. “We may mention bodies in Yerevan, which are endowed with elements of local governance. Thus, by clarifying which those bodies are, we will be able how to solve this issue.” Manasyan also signified the issues of clarifying the borders of Yerevan because “it’s absurdness, when the Lighthouse of Jrvej is in Yerevan but Jrvej community is in Kotayk marz.”
Director of “Yerevan Project” joint-stock company Gurgen Musheghyan told the participants of the debate that administration in Yerevan is based on a trilateral system. “We have local issues directly tied with the people who are in the districts. We have issues concerning the city itself and we have issues concerning the state because after all, Yerevan is the capital city.”
According to Musheghyan, first of all, it’s necessary to find out where there are problems, the specific weight of those problems and then select a model.
“Yerevan has always grown like an organism. Alexander Tamanyan drew the plan for a city with a population of 120,000. Today, Yerevan has been deformed and it doesn’t look like a city. Try to picture a three-bedroom home with one living room where there are three people. When the family grows, the home starts to grow as well because it’s not enough for a ten-member family.”
G. Musheghyan said that in 1996, when there was a discussion concerning the division of Yerevan ’s communities, a proposal was made to enlarge the boundaries of Yerevan . “The smaller the boundaries, the harder construction is; the city doesn’t have the chance to solve all of its issues in the case of functional growth.”
Mr. Musheghyan drew his attention to the issues in the city, which are hard to solve especially if we take into consideration the fact that the population of Yerevan may reach 1,200,000 by 2020.
“These people need homes, bedrooms, gardens, there must be centers that can help. When you distribute them, it’s impossible to solve those issues in central Yerevan or in any other community,” said G. Musheghyan. He also mentioned the lack of roads circumventing Yerevan .
“Central Yerevan has turned into the intersection for all communities. If there is no centralized administration in Yerevan , who’s going to solve those issues?” said G. Musheghyan.
As an alternative, Musheghyan suggests paying attention to the issues necessary to totalize the capital city and then choose the model for administration.
“The administration model must be based on certain issues. It’s wrong to not look at Yerevan as an organism and to not provide funding for administration. It’s not excluded that that may be the division of competencies. The local government bodies can pass some of their competencies to another organization.”
Head of the Davitashen district/community Surik Ghukasyan approached the issue concerning selective and appointed posts from the moral point of view and not legally.
“Being elected is different. I have always said that the elected official is held accountable to the people, while the appointed is only held accountable to the person who appointed him.”
As for the undetermined future of the district/communities of Yerevan , S. Ghukasyan is against the disbanding of this system.
“We have been governing those communities for the past ten years and have reached democracy. Don’t think that I’m dying for that post. I just want everything to be good for the people,” said head of the Davitashen district.
Businessman and lawyer Sargis Aghabekyan believes that the citizens should first ask themselves how they want to see the Yerevan municipality. Should the municipality work with the people? Should it be able to solve the issues of the residents, administer effectively, including visits to schools, solve issues concerning documentation of urbanization, transportation, culture, etc.?
“So, we come to the conclusion that one person physically can’t do that alone and effectively and that means that he has to hand over the authority legally to the community or someone who is actually working with the people. But how can that happen if the Constitution sets limits? If Yerevan turns into a community, it mustn’t counterbalance governance, the institute of the president or other institutes,” says Aghabekyan.
Vice-president of the “Stable Development” NGO and senior lecturer of the Yerevan State University Seyran Suvaryan showed the participants of the debate a document with proposals and the signatures of 22 NGOs.
“Armenia doesn’t have a strategy for regional politics, which must level the entire system. I agree with Musheghyan that administration must help solve the issues. There are main issues in Yerevan ; ecological and social conditions and living standards are in a very bad situation,” said Suvaryan.
They suggest electing both the mayor and the district head through the means of elections.
Vahan Movsisyan referred to the peculiarities of administration in Yerevan .
“Besides being a community, Yerevan has an issue concerning state administration. Thus, there may be certain differences when it comes time to authority… Yerevan may have other authorities which other communities of Armenia don’t have. One of the peculiarities may be the formation of financial means. Besides having fixed incomes, Yerevan may have other sources of income, for example, profit tax.”
V. Movsisyan mentioned other peculiarities, for example, the control of authority, system regulation, etc.
“As we list the peculiarities and describe the quality we must refer to the issues that we all discussed. But one thing is for sure: Yerevan is a community and has fixed boundaries,” said V. Movsisyan.
Leader of the Armenian Christian Democratic Union Khosrov Harutyunyan doesn’t think that it’s necessary to have a bilateral system in Yerevan .
“When we say local autonomy, what we mean is the competency and ability to create opportunities for the people in the communities to live normal lives. I truly believe that the current Constitution of Armenia allows Yerevan to solve issues differently than Giumri. What characterizes Yerevan ? There are groups of main issues that characterize Yerevan and local issues. Secondly, these issues are municipal issues. They concern Yerevan , but let’s not forget that Yerevan is a capital city,” said Kh. Harutyunyan.
Harutyunyan considers transportation and road construction as major issues for the city. According to him, Yerevan has serious peculiarities, which require other peculiarities that are based on models of constructive and financial resources.
“I think that Yerevan must have one, unified local governance with the councilor and mayor. Today, there can be local governments and not administration in the district/communities. After all, the administrator can even be appointed, although I am in favor of having the councilor appoint the administrator,” said Mr. Harutyunyan.
Seyran Avagyan considered the transition of the local government of Yerevan from the district level to the municipal level as a result of the constitutional amendments.
“Cities, which are bigger than Yerevan , are administrated by governing the entire city. There are as many capital cities as there are administration models. Even larger capital cities govern locally the optimal way and they are not bilateral,” said Mr. Avagyan and encouraged the people not to be afraid of how large the city is and try to disconnect.
“Let’s find the effective model for local governance in Yerevan . If we can’t find the right model, it’s not because of the Constitution.”
Narek Sargsyan once again claimed his point of view that if Yerevan stays the way it is, then there will be problems.
“It would be strange to have state and local administration in one city. We city constructors know for a fact that the boundaries of Yerevan are phony and we can’t be proud of today’s boundaries and say that they’re untouchable,” said N. Sargsyan.
He suggests leaving the Central, Arabkir, Nork Marash and Erebuni communities leading to the Station, Downtown and Victory park-“in other words, the boundaries that we know as Yerevan” as the capital city of Armenia. As for the rest, including the Malatia-Sebastia, Davitashen, Ajapnyak, Avan and Nork communities, Sargsyan suggests looking at them as separate municipal communities while keeping them as a region of Yerevan with its minister of territorial management or the regional council he.
Sos Gimishyan believes that the current Armenian Constitution permits Yerevan to have an elected mayor and councilor with appointed administrators. However, the bad side is the appointed administrator will never guide by the interests of the citizens. Mr. Gimishyan reminded the gathered that mayors are appointed only in Baku and Yerevan and there is no appointed mayor in Europe . He doesn’t share the opinion that the elected mayor of Yerevan will counterbalance the president of Armenia .
“Unfortunately, the previous and current authorities are afraid of having an elected mayor. That’s the same thing as being afraid of your own people. The people should also have a great leader who will solve the problems in Yerevan and will then become the president of Armenia ,” says S. Gimishyan. As for the model suggested by N. Sargsyan , according to Mr. Gimishyan, there will be more problems.
“We’re going to divide it into cities and create a regional council. The regional council will be in charge of solving municipal issues because each city is going to be busy solving its issues, while the regional council head will solve issues of all the cities. We’ll have the same problem. The regional council head will be involved in issues concerning local governance.”
President of the Helsinki Committee of Armenia Avetik Ishkhanyan is also in favor of electing the mayor. According to Ishkhanyan, the main problem is that the high-ranking authorities want to keep everything under control.
“We musn’t be afraid of electing the mayor. During elections, people always want to see the person who shows himself. I think that by following the demand of the European Council to have the mayor of Yerevan be elected, counterbalanced communities will be eliminated, other community heads will be appointed in order to be manipulated and be dependent on the central authorities. That’s the key, said Ishkhanyan.