"Fact" daily writes:
In public and political circles, intense critical references and statements do not stop these days regarding another despotic, anti-democratic move by Pashinyan's government. What is it about? As is known, the Pashinyan government, with its CP faction, one can say, unilaterally and with lightning speed adopted a draft law "On Amendments and Additions to the Constitutional Law "Electoral Code of the Republic of Armenia".
Let's put aside the cornerstone fact that changes to the "Electoral Code" are acceptable at least 1 (one) year before the planned elections. And in this case, changes, and very significant changes, are being made when there are barely a few months left for the NA elections scheduled for June. This is indeed a cornerstone circumstance from the point of view of the fundamental principles of democracy. But let's repeat. this aside.
The very fact that the CP brought that project to the NA, how it was "punched" is already problematic, if nothing else is said. Thus, "on foot", at lightning speed, problematic amendments to the "Electoral Code" are brought to the NA agenda overnight, the undisguised purpose of which is to limit, if not to block, the activities of observers who are not under the control of the government. Moreover, the extraordinary or accelerated discussion of the project is followed by the vote, which is managed in a way by a simple majority. at least 65 "sides" were needed, the faction of 71 members of CP somehow provides those 65 votes. That's it, the changes are done, the watch activity is largely blocked. It is also noteworthy that during the fast-paced discussion, the hoodlums do not even hide that their main goal is to block observation organizations that are outside the Pashinyan "supervision", not to let them close to the elections. Even by name, they say that they mean "HayaQuen" in the first place.
They say that "Hayakve" is politicized, so it cannot and should not have the opportunity to carry out an observation mission. A statement that has been repeatedly denied, moreover, even the CEC has not found any facts in this regard. Instead, of course, there is no mention that the pro-government "observation" organizations themselves (not to mention their names, as they are popular) are markedly politicized. Moreover, the head of one of them is always involved in any Pashinyan initiative. It is even more clear that the organizations outside the government's control, which perform observation missions during the elections, such as "HayaQuen", "International Center for the Development of Parliamentarianism", etc., as they say, hurt Pashinyan and his cronies, especially during the Gyumri, Parakar, and Vagharshapat local government elections. And it is also clear that the Pashinyan government, without further ado, always makes changes to limit or block the activities of such organizations. The government's goal is obvious. to have maximum uncontrollability during elections, to commit violations and electoral fraud, to reproduce itself. So what else could be the purpose of this move to get rid of truly independent observers? There is a popular saying. "What would a thief want: a dark night?"
Returning sharply from folklore to the actual question, we think it is appropriate to present several highlights of the statement on behalf of the Public Alliance regarding the aforementioned bill. The Public Alliance for the Counterbalancing of Powers, of course, considers the tricks of limiting the observation missions and complicating the control mechanisms of the government unacceptable. In particular, according to them, with that bill, the government does not directly prohibit the activity of observation missions, but defines such subjective, administrative and legal obstacles that can significantly weaken the public control of elections.
The Public Alliance emphasizes that the system in which one party unilaterally implements changes in the constitutional laws cannot be considered democratic. Also, the system in which the control mechanisms of the government are reduced, in this case, the limitations of the observation mission, cannot be considered democratic.
As for the detailed and specific remarks, let's single out some notable ones, for example: "the amendment introduces a subjective criterion of "political neutrality", according to which any action or statement by observers that can be perceived as a political position can become a basis for activity restriction or punitive sanction." In addition, there has been a significant expansion of the CEC's discretion in determining the admissibility of organizations carrying out an observation mission without clear and objective criteria (ie, the CEC will do whatever it wants). Note that this is only a small part of the remarks.
It is obvious that in the face of this limited change, we are dealing with the further reduction of the already weakened possibilities of democracy, electoral mechanism, and public control of the government. This, as we say, is a direct consequence of the fact that the West, the representatives of the European Union, do you remember, practically announced that they are giving money to Pashinyan's government so that Pashinyan and CP can do whatever they want.
In other words, the "democratic" West also financially promotes the oppression of democracy and the will of the people in Armenia. Well, like they did in Moldova, or maybe worse. Next, it can be predicted that the CP will bring an "urgent change" by which specific political forces, parties, and individuals will be banned from participating in the upcoming elections. Listen, why are you suffering so much? We have a suggestion here. Adopt a 2-point "law" at once, let's say, with this content: "Article 1. It is forbidden to "criticize" (or be against) Nikol Pashinyan and the members of the Communist Party equal to him.
Article 2. It is forbidden to involve any observation mission or political force in the elections, if it has not sworn loyalty to Nikol Pashinyan. So, what, declare Pashinyan the prime minister of Armenia for life, run away? What are all these mock hugs for?
Details in today's issue of "Past" daily
