While Raffi Hovannisian voted in Liberty Square to contest the election results in the Constitutional Court, deputy of the National Assembly Ruben Hakobyan (Heritage Party) together with deputies from the ARF-Dashnaktsutyun and the President of the National Assembly Hovik Abrahamyan debatedwhether to call a special session of the National Assembly to discuss holdingsnap elections. 

When journalists asked Hakobyan whether it was an option for compromise and would it notbe distracting to the national movement, he responded that there was no connection between them. But just because Ruben Hakobyan doesn’t want to see that connection that doesn’t mean it does not exist. 

First of all it is obvious that if there weren’t rallies in Liberty Square, there would not be a need for Abrahamyan to seriously discuss holding snap elections with the members of those parties, each of which has five deputies. 

Second, if this option is not considered as a solution to the "street" movement, then why is it even mentioned? Maybe the opposition and the political majority are so idle that they decided to play volleyball with the issue of holdingsnap elections. In parallel with the developments in Liberty Square, public negotiations with the authorities are taking place. 

There is nothing dangerous in that and it is surprising that Hovannisian's "ally" avoids avowing that fact. This is a civilized model of negotiations under public pressure, which, in all cases, is preferred more than the provocation of clashes by both sides, intentional or not. What is important is the nature of those negotiations and how the agenda is in line with the expectations of people gathered in Liberty Square.  

The opposition’s agenda is simple: to make serious changes in the Electoral Code taking into consideration all demands of the opposition, which previously were categorically rejected, to hold a Constitutional referendum in order to shift to the parliamentary system of government and a 100 percent proportional electoral system in the National Assembly, and then to dissolve the parliament and hold snap elections. 

This agenda is problematic due to three reasons. First, it is not clear why having special elections for the National Assembly was offered when days ago, during a tête-a-tête meeting betweenHovannisian andPresident Serzh Sargsyan, that was suggested as a compromise and was rejected. 

No one can seriously think that Abrahamyan would accept what the President rejected. The authorities are just trying to buy time; this idea would be discussed until, along with the dying energy in Liberty Square, it will be discarded, leaving the opposition in the same old situation. And that is really possible if we consider that the opposition presents this idea as a packagedeal along with the Electoral Code and the Constitutional Referendum, which, besides being substantial, is a very long and tedious process. 

Can the Heritage Party keep people in Liberty Square for that long as a lever of influence? If yes, then it can significantly change the situation in Armenia. But the Yerevan Council Elections are approaching, which opens new doors for intrigue and distracting attention.

However, with these elections the opposition could hope to form majority and stop the epoch of the Republicans only by uniting and forming an alliance. Or else, the opposition’s voice would diminish or crack. But the authorities know this all too well, and the current layout of Parliament is very profitable for them. 

The role of the second biggest parliamentary faction, the Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP), is to act as a buffer for the Republican Party and Serzh Sargsyan in terms of controlling the entire political field. Meanwhile, it is more than obvious that in such a situation new elections would be held using that buffer. Thus, agreeing to new elections means accepting PAP as a diminishing political factor. The question is whether PAP’s political neutralization with a newly forming opposition is included in the current plans of the authorities.  

Second, dissolving the National Assembly is as easy as many like to think. According to the Constitution, only the President can dissolve the National Assembly when it is not able to function. Meanwhile, both modifying the Election Code and the decision to hold a constitutional referendum would suggest that the National Assembly is not only functional, but also very effective. And thus it is very hard to imagine how the President coulddetermine the grounds for discharging the Parliament. 

Yet theoretically, one should not exclude the possibility of relinquishing a mandate when the majority of National Assembly members abandon their mandates in one day, based on an order from the President of the National Assembly, thus creating a situation where itceases to function due to lack of a quorum. 

However, this would mean buryingthe parliamentary system and strippingthe National Assembly of its role as a pivotal, separate and non-governmental institution. Soit should be made clear how a suggestion that runs against constitutional order can be made in parallel with calls for the rule of law and constitution order.  

And finally, does a societystanding at the threshold of civil awakening that believes in itself need parliamentary elections now, and would it solve the problems thatnecessitated them taking to the streets? Let's suppose that the government compromises and agrees to that option-what would happen next?

Shifting the emphasis from presidential elections to parliamentary elections in an agreement with the government would mean validating and legitimizingSargsyan's reelection. Because after such a turn of events, it would seem like the parliamentary and not the presidential elections are not legit, which does not reflect the reality of the situation. 

We cannot exclude the possibility that the government would offer holding parliamentary elections without switching to a parliamentary system of government and compromising the majoritarian electoral system. Is Hovannisian ready for that? 

Finally, it’s clear that in such a situation, at best we would have the Georgian version with its internal crisis and unpredictable consequences. At worst, the government and opposition will negotiate yet another deal that will serve private interests. For the opposition that would mean additional seats in the National Assembly at the expense of PAP and maybe to some extent the Republican Party. 

And what is public interest in that?