Constitution of the Republic of Armenia is somewhat younger than the Third Republic: it came into force exactly 29 years ago. Throughout this time, the fundamental law of Armenia has been suffered all the assaults to which Armenian statehood is subjected, both internally and externally. The sole purpose of all these attempts is to seize the Armenian State and deprive the Armenians of the opportunity to govern their lives on their own territory. The Constitution being perceived as an instrument of unworthy rulers and not as a bearer of the same fate as Armenians as a whole, repeatedly violated and disoriented, forever in the wrong time in the wrong place, is not surprising.
Such a perception is perhaps the main goal of those who alienate Armenians from the Armenian state. Having been under foreign control for centuries and remaining subject to it to this day, a colonial ethnos will perceive everything related to the state – laws, taxes, military conscription – as a tribute to alien rulers and a reminder of the hardships endured, rather than the sacred duties that accompany inviolable rights. Such an outcome is natural: “The Armenian National Constitution” in the Ottoman Empire did not prevent the Armenian Genocide, and the Soviet laws did not protect the Armenians of Baku, Sumgait, Shahumyan district of Artsakh and elsewhere from physical extermination and exile.
The acting Armenian authorities skillfully manipulate such attitudes and declare that the current Constitution does not correspond to the sentiments and intentions of the citizens of “real Armenia”. The trouble is that the Preamble to the Constitution adopted in 1995 directly refers to the Declaration of Independence and the connection of the Third Republic with the historical struggle for independence of the Armenian people, and articulates the collective values of the newly established Armenian statehood. Azerbaijan and Turkey demand its removal from the Constitution as proof of “good intentions” followed by erasure of the biblical Mount Ararat from Armenia’s state insignia, revision of the school history course, etc.
Pashinyan, despite the fact that these gestures will not give any guarantees of physical security and will endanger the existence of the Armenian nation as such, expresses readiness for such concessions, although it was originally planned to foresee possible contradictions of the regulatory legal framework and bilateral relations within the so-called «peace treaty». The Armenian authorities are currently focusing on the latter because they are not confident that Armenian citizens will vote in favor of such changes. The 1995 Constitution, which originally contained these provisions and was perhaps not adopted under the most favorable political conditions (which allows Pashinyan to talk about its “illegitimacy” and lie that Armenians have never voted for their own constitution), nevertheless had a fairly broad support – immeasurably broader than the current authorities enjoyed in the 2021 elections or in the 2023 elections to the Yerevan Council of Elders.
Certainly, the fact that both in 1995 and 2003 (at the first, failed constitutional referendum of the second president Robert Kocharyan) the referendum was combined with elections, especially in the second case, clearly falsified, adds weight to Pashinyan’s announcements about the low public value of the current Constitution. This made elections plebiscitary (turning them into a somewhat of referendum where voting happened in favor or against the authorities, divorced from meaningful electoral agenda) and politicized the referendum, making a matter of national importance such as the Constitution a short-term day-to-day task and therefore depreciating it. Moreover, it is well known that the matching of the referendum on the adoption of the Constitution with the first full-fledged parliamentary elections led to the fact that the members of the Supreme Council were more interested in their own electoral campaigns than in parliamentary hearings on the issues related to the constitutional order.
Serzh Sargsyan’s constitutional amendments, adopted in 2015, were seen with his light hand as an attempt to extend his own rule indefinitely, since his second – and final – term as president was already on the way. Unfortunately, these fears were confirmed when Sargsyan, contrary to his own promises, was elected Prime Minister in April 2018, which became the main reason for protests and his resignation.
In addition, the Serzh Sargsyan’s Constitution and the disposition in power architecture created with its help by Nikol Pashinyan laid the foundation for a fully controlled Constitutional Court, so that Pashinyan is not actually subordinate to the Constitution, but vice versa.
An independent Constitutional Court is the key to the correct interpretation and implementation of the principles of the Constitution (at the public demand). It is for the Constitutional Court to assess the conformity of laws adopted and proposed amendments to the current Constitution and, if necessary, to determine the legality of personnel decisions in the public administration. A good example of such an assessment is the Latvian Constitution, which, by contrast, was adopted before the Declaration of Independence and therefore does not refer to this document. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court of Latvia has ruled that the Declaration has constitutional status and, in accordance with the National Law on the Constitutional Court, the Court should consider contentious draft laws from the point of view of conformity not only to the Constitution, but also the Declaration of Independence. Of course, the Armenian practice of law-making and law enforcement is not related to Latvian, but it is difficult to imagine objective circumstances and differences because of which the independent Constitutional Court of Armenia would have adopted a different verdict when the question was raised in the same way.
To be fair, it should be noted that, in addition to changing the form of government with the consequent amendment of electoral legislation, which has led to the fact that Armenia is now actually operating under a one-party system, the amendments also included such important proposals as the need to decide on Armenia’s membership in international organizations and to agree on territorial changes through a referendum exclusively. It is possible that the article on membership could be introduced in the interests of international organizations in which Armenia was already a member (Eurasian Economic Union and Collective Security Treaty Organization), but it is important that the sole leaders (whether the Prime Minister or the President) have been prevented from addressing such important issues with a stroke of a pen. As the real life shows, this article does not prevent Nikol Pashinyan from squandering Armenian lands, but these are questions of both international legal nature and that that the Armenian Constitution does not provide adequate mechanisms for the protection and implementation of the principles beautifully stated on paper, and the representatives of the Armenian ethnic group – those who should benefit from them – are not determined to monitor its implementation.
At the beginning of his reign, Pashinyan expressed doubts about the democratic nature of the constitutional “suit” tailored to Serzh Sargsyan, and half-heartedly proclaimed the need to return to a semi-presidential form of government and even proposed the introduction of a second house of parliament to engage Armenians from abroad, much like then President Armen Sarkissian. However, the Prime Minister is now well-versed in a system where he de facto controls the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary branches of power. He has now started talking differently and is convening a commission to put together a package of constitutional changes for the second time (the first attempt was cut short by the 44-day war). The deadline set by Pashinyan for drafting the new Constitution is December 2026, without the slightest confusion that by then Armenia will have held at least one more election for National Assembly deputies and prime minister, respectively.
According to the Armenian Prime Minister, the content of the new (not revised, but new) constitution, i.e., form of government, checks and balances, connection with the Armenian world, role of the Armenian Apostolic Church, foreign ownership of private property, etc. are not so important, only would The “Armenian people”, which the Prime Minister calls the “constitutive entity” of Armenia, seeking to evade the concept of “Armenian nation”, voted in a referendum once again. Even if Pashinyan as usual manages to alienate the disaffected electorate and mislead the desired majority of those who will vote and turn the referendum on the new Constitution into another choice among evils, it is obvious right away that this is going to polarize society even further and there can be no talk about a “legitimate document” and finding some “organic connection” between Armenian people and such a constitution.
Pashinyan does not cease his attempts to pin his share of responsibility for the demise of Armenian statehood on the entire Armenian “people”, although in fact a tiny part of the Armenian world votes in favor of him and his initiatives.
Robert Kocharyan, wishing to change the Constitution, compared it with a car, which, of course, “can be driven, but only to Sevan”, Serzh Sargsyan said that “the world is changing rapidly” and Constitution still has to be changed at same point, Nikol Pashinyan now claims that there is no “organic link between the state and the people”. However imperfect and eternally unsuitable the Armenian Constitution may be, it remains the only substantive pillar of Armenia’s formal independence. Definitely, changes are inevitable and the world is not what it was in 1995 and even in 2019 and 2023, but constant revisions of the Constitution up until now have always been linked to narrow political interests that undermined the constitutional foundations of Armenian statehood. However, if the vicious circle of injustice and juggling of the fundamental law continues from above, nothing can protect it from hitting “from the side” – by the efforts of the Armenian world, which the enemies of the Armenian statehood and all the leaders since 1991 have consistently alienated, also legislatively, from its heart – the Republic of Armenia.
There is a good reason why the Constitution has a Preamble and articles that cannot be changed even at a referendum. The Constitution is not a campaign program, it should not be changed by every head of the executive branch, furthermore, no leader has the moral right to introduce a new constitution by imagining themselves to be a Duce [1]. There are eternal values that do not change even with the most rapid global changes, and only the first-ever meaningful Armenian Republic will have a chance to truly revisit them and write a new constitution from scratch. However, the Armenian world will be honoured with such an opportunity only when it realizes that the Third Republic did not fail because of a bad Constitution or a wrong Declaration of Independence, but because it actually renounced them. If it’s not too late.
[1] The title of Benito Mussolini as head of the Italian government and leader of the National Fascist Party in 1922-1945.
