Participating in the second Round Table discussion regarding the domestic political crisis in Armenia and possible approaches to diffuse it were: Armen Ashotyan, National Assembly Deputy (Republican Party); Stepan Safaryan, National Assembly Deputy (Heritage Party); Gegham Manukyan, Director of the Informational & Political Broadcast Department of the “Yerkir Media” TV Company; Hrach Bayadyan, Cultural Critic; Arsen Kharatyan, (“Sksel-a” youth movement) and Edik Baghdasaryan, Chief Editor of “Hetq Online”.

We ask that our readers take part in the discussion and also tell us whom they would like to see as future Round Table participants.

E. Baghdasaryan - Let’s first see if every one agrees that there’s a political crisis in Armenia today.

A. Ashotyan - No, I don’t agree with that formulation. In my estimation, there is no political crisis because all the political institutions are duly established and functioning normally. We can state that there are no shortcomings in the functions under the purview of the National Assembly, neither are there problems in the implementation of the processes of either the government of the president. In Armenia, the crisis is societal, not political. We can label it a crisis of confidence, of tolerance or of justice. Call it what you like, but it’s definitely not a political crisis. In addition, calling it political is a much more superficial characterization than societal.

G. Manukyan - When describing the present situation I would replace the term crisis with stagnation, uncertainty and dead-end. I completely agree that as such, there is no political crisis. What troubles me, if I may use symbolic prose, is the sad-faced citizen walking the streets of Yerevan. It is an image that correctly reflects the current uncertain and dead-end situation for which there is no answer to the perplexing question on everybody’s mind, “What’s going to happen next?”

S. Safaryan - That’s not the case. There’s a judicial and political crisis in Armenian today. The February 19th elections proved that the most important aspect of the political system, namely the electoral system, doesn’t function. Those formal political institutions that are established and functioning, and here I also include the political parties, both pro-government and opposition, weren’t guiding the elections. In terms of political forces, all we had were pale imitations. The forces were there and were represented but in reality the forces spurring on the processes were others. Non-formal institutions registered results. Later on, the events of March 1st showed that if we had a well-established political landscape the conflict would have been resolved by political means. The political system, if it hasn’t already disintegrated, is not functioning.

Regarding the judicial component of the issue one need only look at the evaluations given by a variety of international organizations pointing to the human rights’ crisis. Truly, we have serious problems in terms of human rights in our country as evidenced by the events in the post-election period or the debates that took place in the National Assembly. On this point, my colleagues who represent the authorities, were arguing that for a variety of reasons they were obliged to select the path of restricting freedoms, indirectly saying that yes, there’s a problem in the country regarding the safeguarding of human rights and the degree to which those rights can be exercised. For example, in order to guarantee one’s right to life they were forced to restrict certain political and civil rights and freedoms.

Finally, we have a serious problem in the execution of the law. This issue is the most important contributing factor to the current crisis. If by crisis we only take into account the government or the National Assembly let’s also note that the entire judicial system is in a deep crisis and is actually not functioning.

A. Ashotyan - If you’re saying that the post-election developments weren’t resolved by political means then please point out those political and judicial means. I should remind you that with the decision of the Constitutional Court, all legal processes regarding pre and post election developments came to an end. Furthermore, it is apparently clear that a huge degree of discontent, especially in terms of injustice, evolved in the society during the past years. I wouldn’t describe what happened as a social putsch or revolt. It was more the case of a psychological crisis in which the pent-up discontent was energetically transformed into a host of other manifestations that are not subject to standard political, judicial and other characterizations. Here I speak of post-election developments. I don’t wish to speak of outside factors and let’s all agree not to cite the statements of international organizations because I really don’t believe that any outsider is more concerned with the stability and development of our country than any of us here now, than the government or the opposition.

Two approaches are currently taking shape. The first, if you allow me to describe it as such, is the ‘heartfelt’ approach by which people are actually attempting to understand the problems and resolve them. The other is the ‘exploitative’ approach where the observations of various international organizations are presented in a fragmentary manner and swords are brandished. This approach will result in a continuous but governable social state of chaos: sadly, though, not governable internally. We must not allow the Palestinian/Ukrainian model to be adopted in Armenia. If the concerns of the regime, the opposition and the society are truly sincere, and I have no doubt that they are, then the approach to take must not lead to a permanent state of rising and falling tension.

S. Safaryan - Mr. Ashotyan, I would view the decision of the Constitutional Court that you note more seriously if it hadn’t been passed in the conditions of absolute fear and freedom restrictions surrounding the State of Emergency. As to the political approaches, are we to believe that what was taking place in Freedom Square was just a ‘song and dance festival’ that suddenly transformed into something else? Who took hold of that energy and transformed it and why did it transform? I’m not inclined to think it was due to the supernatural or magical powers of Levon Ter-Petrosyan. In the end, I can’t recall any time before the events of March 1st when the regime met with the opposition; even it was just to shoot the breeze with them.

E. Baghdasaryan - I’m also opposed to constantly citing foreign reports. In the final analysis, I don’t view as important, for instance, what resolutions the Council of Europe will pass. We should be discussing our internal problems. Today, the majority of the society doesn’t have confidence in the authorities. What must be done to change this?

A. Ashotyan - Excuse me, but why are you speaking in the name of the society? This is just your opinion. I have just the opposite opinion. The Central Election Committee duly registered the numerical evaluation of the society regarding the election processes and this was verified by the decision of the Constitutional Court. The country’s first president Levon Ter-Petrosyan also stated this to be the case. We are going down the road of mutual recrimination. If we are going back to our arsenals to pull out various facts to use against the other, this is the wrong road.

H. Bayadyan - Sadly, there are not only facts in the arsenal of the authorities. It is demagogy to say that we have our nation and society where all share the same problems, for example stability. My comprehension of stability is different than yours. Thus, what does “we” mean? You note that we shouldn’t be speaking in the name of the people, of the society. Then why do you say that “we” must have stability? That collective “we” doesn’t exist. Such a conception is absurd. By stability you have in mind the police, the army, perhaps the 6th department of the police. I have a different conception. That’s why I am obliged to apply to the Council of Europe and other institutions: because no one in this country is interested in listening to my opinion. If I raise my voice, at the minimum I’ll be carted away to jail. Full stop, what stability? You’ll give the same answer - That we need to find ways out of the situation. For me, the status quo isn’t a way out. I suggest we think about other variations and not speak about foreign powers, chaos and other such things. All of that is just metaphors with which they want to justify the current situation, something unacceptable to me and hundreds of thousands of others.

A. Ashotyan - I also find it unacceptable. That’s why I’ve come here to discuss things with people holding different points of view.

A. Kharatyan - In my opinion we must stop seeing things in black and white (internal and external) for one simple reason. Our country is a member nation of the Council of Europe, from the same family, and like it or not we must come to terms with that family. Secondly, we don’t have a legitimate president and I don’t see the United States congratulating him. In my humble opinion that man enjoys no standing whatsoever in the country. He has no standing due to the “sad faces” that Gegham Manukyan spoke of awhile ago; faces that reflect this lack of standing. Any person that enjoys no authority in his own country is incapable of implementing any real reforms.

Another example of the crisis is that we are constantly standing before the constitutional farce. The National Assembly passes laws that are contrary to the nation’s Constitution and international conventions that we have signed on to. If this isn’t a crisis of the legislative branch, please tell me which branch? You cite the decisions of the Central Elections Committee (CEC), but I and the rest of the society visible to me, don’t have confidence in that institution. That’s where the true demagoguery is to be found  - when you make constant references to the CEC or the Constitutional Court, institutions that are constantly passing decisions that violate my rights.

G. Manukyan - Levon Ter-Petrosyan justified all the fraud surrounding the 1996 elections with a decision of the Constitutional Court. According to this reasoning a just victory also took place this time around. Otherwise, we’d have to be sincere and openly state that the 1996 elections were rigged by Ter-Petrosyan and Serzh Sargsyan did the same in 2008.

E. Baghdasaryan - Mr. Manukyan, I’d like to know what the ARF-D, as a political party, has done during the past few years to ensure that free and fair elections take place? In my estimation the party has done nothing.

G. Manukyan - It is now possible to state that it has done nothing. However, for one year I had the good fortune to contemplate, both day and night, what in the law could be changed to ensure that at least one violation of the process be removed and I know for certain that many violations have been removed.

E. Baghdasaryan - In general terms it is absurd when they state that the electoral code must be changed. The rule of law isn’t practiced in Armenia and that’s the entire problem in a nutshell. The Armenian authorities really have no clue as to how they must interact with the people. Will they go on arresting people every day on Northern Avenue? Is that the answer to the problem?

A. Kharatyan - In essence the formulation that there’s a crisis in Armenia is incorrect. From the point of view of the regime, on the grand scale, there is absolutely no crisis. Let me bring a pointed example to prove this. When Hitler had a problem with a judge who couldn’t bring himself to pass down a sentence outside of the law, he simply said the laws must be altered in such a way so that judges could hand down decisions favorable to them. Today, our National Assembly is doing the same thing. According to the laws they’ve passed I don’t have the right to organize a rally. It passes laws regarding individuals or government bodies and sees that they are carried out with the entire weight of its dictatorial machinery. In other words, the regime knows exactly how to handle the society. It shapes the Police or the secret Services in such a way that it doesn’t notice the crisis.

S. Safaryan - What are you talking about? It is a crisis just because of the fact that the society has no confidence at all in any political institution.

A. Ashotyan - In this regard, we all share a portion of the guilt. All the institutions - journalistic, political, government, social...This is a system of communicating vessels. Why is it that people have no faith in any type of media, whether state-controlled or opposition? Why are they suspicious of politicians? Because we’ve inherited a long standing custom of making remarks having little to do with reality. Let’s all of us wake-up to the fact.

E. Baghdasaryan - The comparison isn’t correct. The field of journalism isn’t refused across the board. That’s a wrong evaluation. There are media outlets outside the political arena that report objective news. The common citizen can tell the difference.

A. Ashotyan - The field of journalism ultimately reflects the political field. They’re both one and the same. As to the issue of electoral fraud, all eight members of the CEC approved 75% of the results from 1926 election precincts. Let’s assume that the Rule of Law Party and the ARF-D knew back then that they’d be forming a coalition with the authorities. But the Heritage Party hasn’t changed its stance. This party had representatives on location in all precincts. So why did they sign off on that 75% of the registered vote. In other words either the Heritage Party lacked reputable people or in fact violations didn’t occur. If we are taking about selling out or intimidation they should have selected people to sit on those committees from the hundreds of thousands of people who attended rallies day and night without fear. Our people proved in Freedom Square that they no longer fear anything.

H. Bayadyan - Those people weren’t yours. You have no people that take to the streets and squares. You had to forcibly take people to Republic Square. Excuse me, but it’s senseless to carry on with this discussion because we started off on the wrong foot. You say they signed off on the election results and the issue ends there.

A. Ashotyan - You are intolerant of dissenting viewpoints and thus for me your leader isn’t the one to ensure democracy.

H. Bayadyan - And who said that my leader is Levon Ter-Petrosyan? Here the question isn’t about Levon Ter-Petrosyan or Serzh Sargsyan. You come with tanks and say that I’m intolerant? I’m a peaceful unarmed individual. You ask why we aren’t democratic? You charge me with not being democratic while you have the army and police behind you and when you place restrictions on my freedoms? But are you tolerant of others? Of course it is easy to look down from a tank at an unarmed person with a kindly smile on your face.

(The continuation of the Round Table discussion can be found in the Armenian section)

Discussion transcribed by Ararat Davtyan