Since the end of February, Armenia has covered mass protests against the existing authorities. In response, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan also conducted a number of mass shares and announced plans to conduct early parliamentary elections and a constitutional referendum. In an interview with Eurasia.Expert, director of the Caucasian Institute, political scientist Alexander Iskandaryan rated the prospects for the development of the conflict of power and opposition and the internal political meaning of the scandalous statements of the Armenian leader on Russian weapons.
- Alexander Max, what is the cause of mass discontent of citizens and what purposes the opposition leaders are achieved?
- Mass protests began immediately after the end of the war. These protests were first the result of the shock, which arose after the defeat in the second Karabakh war, then they began to be issued into the political format. A union of 17 opposition political parties was formed, which this movement was headed.
It is gradually a certain analogue of folk fronts is formed, that is, the association of very many political (and often not political) people and structures - from the church to the Academy of Sciences, from university teachers to actors, journalists, and so on. The purpose of this movement is to remove the current government.
This protest is gradually structured and in the last two weeks, starting from about February 20, it takes the form of rallies that become protracted. A few days is usually implemented by a large rally and procession in the city, streets overlap. All this is quite traditional forms of political protest. For Armenia, it is generally characterized by the impact on politics from the street, that is, not only from the parliament, but also by the off-parliamentary opposition. We now observe such a protest format and, I think we will observe yet. The society accumulated quite a lot of discontent with the current government, especially after the war. But this does not mean that there is no support of the authorities, it is also there, the rallies in support of the government of Pashinian is also.
- Criticism of the Prime Minister of Armenia Nikola Pashinyan to the Russian complexes "Iskander" caused a wide resonance, but later the head of state recognized that it was incorrectly informed. How did this situation affect the internal political situation and relationship with Russia, what conclusions can be made from the current situation?
- Those phrases that Mr. Pashinyan said in his interview, in my opinion, to relations with Russia and the assessment of the quality of Russian weapons have nothing to do, it is a purely internal political discourse. Prior to that, there was an interview with the former President of Armenia Serge Sargsyan, who actually accused Pashinian and his government in defeating in the war and, listing various mistakes, which, in his opinion, made members of the current government, among other things he called and the fact that "Iskander »Not used correctly during the war. The context of this statement is understood by a completely every resident of the Republic of Armenia.
The fact is that "Iskander" were acquired by Armenia during Serzh Sargsyan's presidency. Armenia is the first country in the world, which acquired "Iskander", which was the subject of pride of the then government, and now he saw that they were not used, and it was a charge towards Pashinian. Pashinyan, justifining (and for some reason he found it necessary to give a response interview), said something in such a spirit that "Iskander" were not good enough to use them during this war. The representative of the General Staff, according to the press, laughed at this statement, which really looked rather emotionally and is not very appropriate, and it turned into a political thesis, although this is the internal political consequences of the use of one or other use of this or no weapon. relations.
- On March 1, Nikol Pashinyan at the rally of his supporters proposed to hold a referendum in the country to change the form of the Board. What is behind this initiative, and what are its possible consequences?
- It may happen, the shortcomings of the current Constitution, the Election Act, are quite widely discussed in Armenia. One way to overcome the acute political crisis is to discuss the changes in the constitution.
In the end, before Coronavirus in Armenia, a referendum was assumed to change some powers of the Constitutional Court, that is, on issues that had much less importance than changing the entire constitution. Why not speak about it now?
The problem that stands in front of Armenia is political sense, and not legal, there is far from only and not so much in what is written on paper, as in what is the political situation. With us, as in all post-Soviet countries, problems lie not in the legal sphere, but in the political sphere.
Political crisis, widespread discontent, then the elite uprising I spoke about, to avoid the fact that the laws will be changed, it seems difficult to me. But it can happen.
- How are Armenian citizens are ready to support changes in the Constitution?
- We will see. It is unlikely that Armenia consists entirely of lawyers and specialists in constitutional law, there will be some kind of confirmation or rejection of the government again and what the government says. To date, it is not very good clear what exactly will change, and which laws will be offered to change. I would not even now argue, there will be or not at all this referendum, it is too early to talk about it.
- The Armenian Prime Minister also announced the holding of early elections to parliament. Will this stabilize the situation in the country?
- I do not think. Maybe it will change a few situation in the country. This is a story about how to arrange elections to stay in power. Parliament may be less fractional, can be more fractional (there may be more small opposition parties). If it is changed, with a smaller fraction of the ruling party, it can be different in a different way. However, it is necessary to think that this will change the situation with the legitimacy of the government, the weakness of state institutions, the insufficient development of political parties, weak institutionalization, with a contradiction between the military leadership and the country's management is difficult, especially by having some elections. This is a more difficult task.
Announced Maria Mamzelkina