With the recent announcement by Armenia’s Central Election Commission certifying the results of the parliamentary elections, attention has shifted to the courts, where several opposition parties are challenging the results and demanding either recounts or revotes. This process is important primarily because the Prosperous Armenia Party missed the threshold for parliamentary seats by a small margin, officially listed at 3.9893% versus the required 4%.
With only a few votes separating Prosperous Armenia from participation in the National Assembly, a recount would seem reasonable. The participation of the Prosperous Armenia Party would readjust the distribution of the 105 seats and reduce the majority of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s Civil Contract Party from 64 to 61. In the short term, the most important issue before the Armenian people is the proposed constitutional change prepared by the governing Civil Contract Party. The plan has been to prepare a draft and begin the approval process after the national elections. A new Constitution or amendments require a popular referendum, but legislative approval requires a two-thirds majority.
With 64 seats, Civil Contract has enough seats to form a government without alliances and propose changes and legislation, but not enough to amend the Constitution. A two-thirds vote of the Assembly, or 70 votes, is required to pass a referendum motion for amendments. Allocating seats to the Prosperous Armenia Party would further erode the current majority.
The Constitution of a democracy is the foundation upon which the society rests.
Changes to any constitution serve as a reference point for the judicial system and the rule of law in that nation. Such changes have far-reaching implications and, as such, should be subject to a robust process. A constitution should truly represent the will of the people, and not the whim of the moment.
With the approaching 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in the United States, it is an opportune time to learn from the most prolific and stable democracy on the planet. Amending the Constitution in the United States is an arduous, lengthy venture with a low probability of success. In the 250 years since those immortal signatures were affixed — this is where the saying “just sign your John Hancock” originated — that bedrock of democracy has been amended only 27 times.
There have been nearly 12,000 attempts, with 33 achieving congressional approval. Amendments can be proposed by either the House of Representatives or the Senate, requiring a two-thirds majority from both chambers. There is also a constitutional provision for amendments to be proposed by two-thirds of state legislatures, but that provision has never been utilized in any of the 27 amendments. Once an amendment passes the political gauntlet of the House and Senate, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states, or 38 states.
This system is designed to err on the side of ensuring constitutional integration within the context of each period. The amendment process exists to keep the nation current with the evolution of democracy. That change, however, must withstand the test of checks and balances, the hallmark of any democracy. To put this in perspective, in the early days of American democracy, voting privileges were given only to white male landowners. Subsequent amendments addressed these shortcomings as society advanced.
Despite the visibility and power of the American suffragist movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Democratic Republic of Armenia, from 1918 to 1920, awarded women the right to vote before the 19th Amendment did so in the United States. Some amendments that passed Congress languished in the states for years before passing or failing. The Constitution does not stipulate a time limit for ratification, but Congress has established seven-year limits in many cases since the 18th Amendment.
The recent elections in Armenia identified many points of contention between the opposition and the ruling Civil Contract Party. These include a blend of foreign and domestic policy issues, but perhaps the most controversial is the ruling party’s intention to introduce and seek approval for a new Constitution, essentially replacing the current framework approved in 2015. This proposal falls under the law of amendments, requiring parliamentary approval by a two-thirds majority and a popular referendum.
Although the draft has yet to enter the public legislative domain, significant attention has been given to the original Declaration of Independence, which is included in the preamble of the current Constitution. It makes specific references to the transition from the former Soviet Republic to a sovereign republic and to reunification with Artsakh, as issued by the Armenian Supreme Soviet and the National Council of Nagorno-Karabakh. The government supports removing this declaration from the new Constitution, while the opposition considers it an unnecessary concession to Azerbaijan.
Aliyev has declared on numerous occasions that removing this reference is a condition for signing the peace treaty. Many Armenians consider this meddling in Armenia’s internal affairs, given that the Constitutional Court of Armenia reviewed this matter a few years ago and decided it was unnecessary to remove the declaration because it posed no territorial demand or threat to Azerbaijan.
Obviously, the political winds have changed, as this has now become an internal debate within Armenia. The prime minister has stated that the declaration is inconsistent with developing a modern state, while the opposition stands behind previous reviews and rejects Azerbaijani interference. Of course, this issue must also be viewed in the context of the new draft and other content changes.
Reviewing this issue in light of the current election results creates new possibilities. Democracy in its purest form offers a voice to all. The reality is that majorities, supermajorities and constitutional majorities can limit voices through procedural and other legal channels. Politics is not always a unifying proposition and can leave some on the outside.
The numbers show that legislative approval of a new Constitution would require about six opposition lawmakers to join Civil Contract, assuming the Civil Contract bloc remains solid. Given the adversarial nature of the ruling and opposition groups, it is difficult to see collaboration without compromise. This would be new territory for Armenia’s political climate and, in my view, a positive development. The opposition would have to be heard in the legislative process. The people of Armenia benefit from collaboration, cooperation and agreements.
In comparison, the contentious relationship between Democrats and Republicans in Washington does not benefit the American people. Gridlock and political conflicts do not serve the interests of the people. Honest debate, inclusion and abiding by the majority, as defined, serve the citizens. The law requiring a two-thirds majority will open the door for all voices to be heard. Democracy can be messy, but we must believe that, with all parties participating, the best solutions will emerge. Some will view this challenge as an escalation of the political divide. We can also view it as an opportunity for a breakthrough in Armenia’s political environment.
It is often said after an election that “the people have spoken.” With the court challenges notwithstanding, the people seem to be saying that they need balance and more diversity of views. Changes that will have a fundamental impact on all citizens should be required to pass a gauntlet of milestones to ensure that voices have been heard and that the changes support the shared vision of the nation. A legislature short of the two-thirds majority will encourage a full debate on the proposed changes.
A popular referendum would be Armenia’s version of the U.S. law requiring three-fourths of the states to ratify constitutional amendments. The greatest democracy in the world has had thousands of proposals over 250 years, and only 27 have passed the litmus test. Armenia is a young democracy. It is still discovering the path of finding balance between political stability and inclusion. Political collaboration and traditionally adversarial relations can be compatible in a thriving democracy.
Armenia is entering a new parliamentary experience in which collaboration at some level is required, or the matter will fail. Of course, the opposition parties could remain unified in their opposition, but it might be in the interests of the citizens to use their leverage for a compromise.
Pray that we learn from our experiences to build a better tomorrow.
