June 7, 2007

Raffi Hovannisian Responds...

Yerevan—Excerpted below are Heritage Party chairman Raffi K. Hovannisian’s replies to questions received recently from various Armenian news agencies.

1. How effective will the new coalition government be, especially against the background of widespread violations of the fundamental principles of a rule-of-law state?

—It is still early to offer a substantiated response. A healthy foundation will support effective work; a partisan basis will beget parochial politics-as-usual.

2. How would you evaluate the lack of solemnity, one might even say the theatricality of the National Assembly’s first session?

—Heritage was not present. The ultimate assessment belongs to the nation.

3. When does the Heritage fraction of Parliament plan to report to work? How would you interpret the pedantic statements made to the state media by Tigran Torosyan about Heritage’s lack of a legal motivation—and political experience—for its non-participation in the first session?

—I have no desire to answer the honorable Mr. Torosyan point by point. Let me simply say that the characterizations attributed to him by the media do not reflect the true spirit and substance of our telephone conversation.

We have already publicized Heritage’s letter to him. For us and our brand of politics both the legal and the moral underpinnings are essential and inalienable. First, pursuant to the National Assembly’s rules and regulations, we were obliged to give advance notice to the Speaker of the impossibility of our participation and the reasons therefor. If there is a more appropriate addressee, as the gentleman seems to believe, let it be known and we will happily resend our letter of notification.

Second, on the issue of the timing of the first session, reference is being made to the Constitution and the National Assembly’s rules, but nobody seems to want to note that neither of these documents makes mention of June 7. On the contrary, an elementary mathematical addition of the Thursdays referred to therein results in a clear determination of May 31. If the relevant state body—whichever one it is—makes a capricious interpretation and changes the date for the first session, then at the very least it must give due notice of that change, however unconstitutional it might be. Rumors, presumptions, and press comments are not official methods of notice in a lawful, democratic, and sovereign state. This is not to mention the lack of information as to the time and means for receipt of the parliamentary credentials as well as a variety of other organizational shortcomings. At the bottom of all this is the imperative of dignity for the Republic, its citizens and public servants.

And, finally, the validity of the parliamentary elections is currently at issue before the Constitutional Court. It is precisely on the basis of jurisprudence, ethics and, yes, political science that Heritage has considered and made its civic decision to wait until the Court’s verdict and not, by our conduct, to prejudice it. All other insinuations, judgmental diatribes, and sponsored gossip are worthy of a banana republic, but should have no place in our country.