I didn't know that they loved me so much at the bottom of their hearts," Armenian President Robert Kocharyan proclaimed at a November 3 rd meeting with students at Yerevan State University's law department. National Unity Party Chairman Artashes Geghamyan reacted to the presidential statement by saying: "Men don't love each other in Armenia. It is just not accepted here."

Strange as it may sound, these reflections on love were made in connection with the proposed constitutional amendments and the referendum scheduled for November 27, 2005. In order for the amendments to enter into force, more than 50 percent of the voters who take part in the referendum must vote for the amendments, and this number must constitute no less than one third of the country's eligible voters. The necessary prerequisite here is to keep the voters informed. The issue gets more complicated when the different political groups limit the discussion to loving or not loving the government, in this case, Robert Kocharyan.

In their official statement, the Armenian National Movement (ANM) refused to be drawn into substantive discussions of the amendments, saying only: "These authorities have no moral right to approach he Constitution." According to Ara Sahakyan, the current leadership lacks the knowledge and talent necessary to adopt a constitution or make amendments, but rather, "They are dictated to by outside forces.".

Although other groups who have come out against the amendments don't go far beyond the logic of loving-not-loving Robert Kocharyan, they do try to provide certain explanations. The leader of the National Democratic Union (NDU), Vazgen Manukyan, doesn't plan to take part in the referendum: "Going to the referendum means getting drawn into the government's game." Vazgen Manukyan advises the public to not even say "no" to the amendments. "It is better to boycott the referendum. Saying "no" means expressing an opinion on the document. It is easier to exercise control over the boycott than to control falsifications," he believes. If the results of the referendum are falsified - and Vazgen Manukyan has no doubt that they will be - the NDU leader suggests: "The most probable and awful variant is that the referendum will be falsified in favor of 'yes'. The machine for falsifications is in the hands of people who are for 'yes', and the experience of recent years has shown that they have always shamelessly used it to get the results they needed. For the people, this will be a disaster; their last hope will die. If the vote is falsified, we should rise up."

Political scientist Stepan Safaryan of the Zharangutyun ( Heritage) Party agrees with Vazgen Manukyan: "It is not right to undertake a constitutional process at a stage when an acute struggle is going on even among the forces constituting the political coalition, and every one understands that the competition for the office of future president of Armenia has already begun." Safaryan believes that the only way out of the current situation is to boycott the constitutional referendum. Chairman of the New Times Party Aram Karapetyan also calls for a boycott of the referendum, explaining that it will not benefit the people: "As for the government, they are ready to make any decision to prevent the referendum from turning into a revolutionary process and, in addition, to please foreign countries and to legitimize their own power."

The United Labor Party (ULP), which views itself as a constructive or moderate opposition party, declared before the final vote at the extraordinary session of the National Assembly that some questions of principle had to be solved first. Although the ULP proposals were not taken into consideration by the authors of the draft and party leader Gurgen Arsenyan defined the draft as a "step back toward dictatorship," the ULP is now calling upon voters to say "yes" to the amendments.

The stance of the Communist Party (CPA) is more clear-cut. CPA member Ruben Torosyan is confident that people will say "no" during the referendum. In Comrade Torosyan's view, the articles of the constitution clash with each other. "A person is deprived of every right beginning with the right to go to the toilet and ending with the right to vote. It is written that a person has a property right. Then why do they turn people out to the streets and pull down their houses? Why don't the courts render objective decisions? Because before judges were elected and now they are appointed. They obey the orders of those who appoint them," Torosyan says.

In contrast to the Communist Party, the Democratic National Union of Armenia (DNUA) is enthusiastic about the draft constitutional amendments. "Back in 1995 when the Constitution was adopted the DNUA declared that it was in favor of a parliamentary system of government. This draft envisages very serious changes in the system of government. We see a serious advance toward a parliamentary system. The changes will still go on and the process will not end with the November 27 referendum," maintains DNUA leader Seyran Avagyan, who is also an advisor to President Kocharyan.

Naturally, the members of the ruling coalition are the most optimistic, especially vis-à-vis the judicial system. They believe that the proposed amendments create the necessary prerequisites for bringing the judicial system to an acceptable level of independence. Vice-speaker of the National Assembly Tigran Torosyan, in particular, finds that the opponents to the changes have to look hard for explanations: "In fact, a reasonable person has no grounds to be against this draft. That's why the opposition has no unified position on this issue." Tigran Torosyan believes that the only sensible explanation has been that of the ANM , which stated that their party preferred the constitution, adopted in their time. "After all, the opponents must answer the question of whether they are choosing the present constitution or the amended one, because being against the amendments clearly means supporting the present one," he says. Torosyan also connects the constitutional amendments with a favorable resolution of the Karabakh conflict. This view is fully shared by Member of the Supreme Organ of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF/Dashnaktsutyun) Armen Rustamyan: "It is here that we should understand well that if only for this very argument we should take the question of the constitutional amendments off the field of the government-opposition collision."

Coalition partner Orinats Yerkir may well be the most active party in the "yes" campaign. Vice-chairman Mher Shahgeldyan has been entrusted with the chairmanship of the coordinating council for preparatory work on the constitutional referendum. These days, Shahgeldyan prefers not to answer questions from journalists. He just states from time to time: "Everything is within the framework of democracy." The council he heads consists of 24 political groups.

Opposition forces are mainly assembled within the so-called "17+1" format, but do not seem particularly united vis-à-vis the constitutional referendum. Though the People's Party of Armenia (PPA) has signed the "17+1" petition, party chairman Stepan Demirchyan had announced that the Artarutyun (Justice) Bloc would participate in the campaign with its own program and is not involved in the organization and coordination of the work of "17+1". While saying "no" to the draft, Demirchyan doesn't deny that it also contain some positive clauses: "Whatever is good has been accepted at the opposition's demand. The fight against falsifications is our common cause. If we say 'no' we say 'no' not to European integration but to the illegal regime which has committed a number of crimes."

Leader of the Hanrapetutyun Party Aram Sargisyan says "no" to the amendments as well, and is confident that the opposition will unite around the issue: "The opposition plans decisive actions. After campaigning in the regions each party will return to the capital, and it is clear that at the final rally, which will take place either at the Opera Square or near Matenadaran, all those who say 'no' will speak out together. And it should not at all be ruled out that the final rally might accumulate critical mass. Thus the consolidation of opposition is inevitable, irrespective of ideological poles." Nevertheless, there is little unanimity regarding campaign tactics within the Artarutyun Bloc. Though other bloc members are campaigning for "no" or for a boycott, Shavarsh Kocharyan prefers to stay out of they fray. "Why should we give Robert Kocharyan an additional opportunity to blame the opposition for the referendum failure?" he asks.

It is not always possible to distinguish pro-government or opposition forces by how they plan to vote in the upcoming referendum. For example, the Union for National Self-Determination, which considers itself in the extreme opposition finds itself in the "yes" camp. "We're not saying 'yes' to the amendments because we approve of the current leadership. This draft provides for progress and it doesn't belong to the government," says party leader Paruyr Hairikyan.. Vardan Poghosyan, the chairman of the NGO Democracy , which participated in developing the draft after it was passed by the parliament in the first reading, also sees this draft as a step forward compared to the present constitution, although it contains some negative provisions. His "yes" or "no" will depend on the how the authorities conduct themselves throughout the campaign and the referendum. "I am going to vote 'yes' if the authorities create equal conditions for 'yes' and 'no' voters. Otherwise, I'll vote 'no'. I am not going to aid and abet forgery," he says.

"In fact these draft amendments are not to the government's liking, " Poghosyan maintains. "The reason is that the Council of Europe was more resolute this time vis-à-vis the authorities and the opposition lost its chance. The opposition was guided by the presumption that it was better to have a bad constitution to be able to criticize the authorities more." Poghosyan recalled that after the draft was adopted in the first reading the Venice Commission stressed in its conclusion that the Armenian authorities should take into account those proposals that corresponded to opposition demands. He believes that the opposition should have returned to the parliament and presented its proposals officially. He doesn't share the view, however, that if the people say 'no' to the referendum everything will end there. In the event of a 'no' vote, he says it is theoretically possible to develop a better draft before the 2008 elections. But if this draft is adopted, then we will forget about amendments for a long time.

In such a party-colored campaign it may be hard for voters to get their bearings vis-à-vis "yes" or "no". The only way out may be to actually read the draft themselves before deciding whether and how to vote.