On Friday the “Heritage” political party office sent to all the presses the responses of Raffi Hovhannisian to a series of questions given by the mass media. It is hard to say why Hovhannisian decided to communicate with the mass media this way.
So, with regards to the question as to how he evaluates the subsequent ruling coalition by the Republican Party/Prosperous Armenia format and ARF collaboration, Hovhannisian gave a very philosophical response:
“It is too early to give a well-founded response. A good base leads to effective work. A sectored base leads to a materialistic (mercenary) continuation.”
Of course, it is hard to grasp what the “Heritage” leader wanted to say, but one thing is for sure-there is no concrete evaluation. The next question to which the “Heritage” leader responded was the following: “How do you evaluate the unnatural celebrative and lighthearted atmosphere during the first session of the 4th convening of the National Assembly (there were bursts of laughter, applause and mockery during the reading of the oppositional deputies’ names… as described by “Heritage”)? Did you get the impression that the pro-government parties that secured their regeneration on May 12 had put on a show in parliament?” Hovhannisian had the following to say to that:
““Heritage” was not present. The people give the main evaluation.”
The third question referred to when the “oppositional” “Heritage” faction was planning to work in the National Assembly and how Hovhannisian feels about the announcement made by Tigran Torosyan regarding the political and legal motives for “Legal State” and “Heritage” not participating in the National Assembly session and the evaluations on that. In response to that, the leader of “Heritage” said:
“I wouldn’t like to answer to Mr. Torosyan, whom I respect. I will simply say that the qualifications printed in the press do not correspond to the reality and content of our telephone conversation. We have already published the letter of “Heritage”. There are two levels for us – the legal and the moral – that are inseparable parts of our policy. Firstly, based on the National Assembly charter, we were obligated to inform the National Assembly chairman beforehand that we were not going to come to parliament and give the explanations. If there is someone else whom it was addressed to, they should tell us and we will correct the error. Secondly, there is a reference made to the Constitution and the National Assembly charter regarding the period of the first session of the National Assembly, but nobody wants to recall that June 7 is not stated there. On the contrary, the simple addition of the Thursdays reaches May 31. If the corresponding body of the Republic of Armenia, whichever one, makes a headstrong comment and changes the day of the first session of the National Assembly, it should be generous enough to notify about that. Interviews, rumors or predictions are not the modes of official notification in an autonomous, legal, democratic state, not to mention the reception of mandates and other organizational activities. The basis of the problem is the command for dignity of the Armenian state, its citizens and public officials. Finally, a lawsuit has been filed to the Constitutional Court regarding the validity of the parliamentary elections. Jurisprudence, ethics, and yes, also political science, condition the civil decision of “Heritage” – that is, to wait for the final verdict of the Constitutional Court and not predetermine anything. The rest of the commentary, the judge’s manner, and gossip characterize a “Banana” republic, but never our country.” There you have it.