The "Hayakwe" initiative is still engaged in "protecting" the basic law of the Hays

One of the main issues currently on the political agenda in Armenia is related to the proposals made by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan on January 19 that the country needs a new constitution. From the day the proposal was put forward, both the leadership of the ruling "Civil Agreement" party and the deputies of the ruling party, as well as opposition activists and political experts, express their opinions in this direction.

It should be noted that the discussions conducted in this direction in Armenia are carefully monitored in our country. The point is that the basic law of the Hays refers to the declaration of independence adopted in 1990. The declaration of independence stimulates and promotes territorial claims against our country. As long as the territorial claims to Azerbaijan are not removed from the legislative level, the signing of the peace agreement has an impossible effect.

President Ilham Aliyev, who shared his views in this direction on February 1, stated that the declaration of independence contains direct calls for the unification of Karabakh with Armenia and violation of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. References to this document are reflected in the constitution of Armenia.

Also, in other normative and legal documents of Armenia, there are territorial claims against our country, in many conventions to which Yerevan has joined and in other documents, there are numerous reservations that do not recognize Azerbaijan's sovereignty over Karabakh. The President noted that peace can be achieved if these claims are put an end to and changes are made to the Armenian constitution and other normative-legal documents. The head of our state said that the initiation of internal discussions on this topic in Armenia is considered a positive step, and this may create a good opportunity for the peace process to be concluded soon.

In Armenia, there is mostly solidarity in the ruling political camp regarding the issue of changing the constitution. They show unanimity around the prime minister's proposal. Even the speaker of the parliament, Alen Simonyan, went a little further and said that the national anthem and coat of arms should be changed as well. He wrote on his "Telegram" channel: "It is clear to me that the anthem of the Republic of Armenia should be changed sooner or later. It should be related to our country and Armenian music. The national anthem should be played according to the rules. I am not arguing that the anthem should be replaced by the great music of genius Aram Khachaturian. But it seems that it is necessary to change the existing national anthem, which is foreign to us.

Sharing his views on the coat of arms, Simonyan noted that this issue should also be discussed. He wrote, referring to the depiction of Noah's ark, Mount Ararat in Turkey and the current territory of Armenia being submerged in the coat of arms, he wrote: "At least the coat of arms should not depict Armenia submerged in water. It should be noted that the "Great Flood" was the punishment of mankind. Also, the lion on our coat of arms cannot be similar to the Facebook smiley. The sword that protects Armenia cannot be reflected while it is chained."

In an interview with journalists, A. Simonyan said that the need for a new constitution is the result of geopolitical changes in the region. According to him, since Armenia regained its independence, there are provisions in the fundamental documents that need to be revised: "These are related to geopolitical changes and recent events. We need to understand where Armenia is going and what goals it is pursuing. We should ask ourselves the question for what purpose the Republic of Armenia exists: Is it to restore "great Armenia" or to ensure the safety and well-being of citizens? We have to answer these questions, and I think that the answers given to them in our society are ambiguous."

However, the deputy speaker of the parliament, Ruben Rubinyan, said that the government has not made a decision on changing the anthem and coat of arms of the country. According to him, currently the ruling "Civil Agreement" party, its faction in the parliament and the government do not have any decision on this matter: "Who said that we want to change the anthem and coat of arms? Personally, I don't want to change them."

Rubinyan also said that the draft of the new constitution does not exist, no one has seen it.

Vladimir Vardanyan, the chairman of the standing commission for state and legal issues of the parliament, deputy from the ruling "Civil Agreement" party, while answering journalists' questions in the parliament on February 5, said: "We have to look at the constitution from two perspectives. The first of these is the text of the document itself, and the other is the will of the citizens or the borders. "This issue, in fact, has been continuously discussed since 2018. I want us to look at the constitution as a living document that needs to be changed in relation to the development of social and public relations. From this point of view, after regaining its independence, Armenia is not the first and the last country to discuss not only constitutional reforms, but also the issue of the text of the new constitution."

To the question about whether it is possible to refer to the declaration of independence in the new constitution, he answered: "If the new text of the constitution is put to a referendum, the source of power will decide which text it will contain."

Commenting on the opinion that the opposition is sure that the change of the constitution is Azerbaijan's demand, the chairman of the commission said: "We discuss this problem more than the Azerbaijani media. No constitution can and should be adopted under duress. Because if it is accepted under pressure, we will have problems with sovereignty. The new constitution may have more or less references to the declaration of independence. For now, it's just an idea, and as I mentioned, everything will be decided by the source of power, the people. I have always been against attempts to change the constitution once a week, and at the same time I am against attempts to treat the constitution as a 'sacred cow', it is a living document."

Political analyst Suren Surenyants believes that the prime minister delegitimizes Armenian statehood with "low-level" rhetoric about the constitution and the declaration of independence: "Pashinyan said in an interview on public radio on February 1 that the adoption of the Armenian constitution and additions to it will never free the will of the citizens. it did not happen under the circumstances he stated. But to what extent will the constitution prepared by the dictates of other countries be legitimate? "Pashinyan is certainly worried about the important internal legitimacy issues, but if you are preparing to adopt a new constitution on orders from outside, the legitimacy of your statehood is being questioned."

The former Minister of Justice of Armenia, Gevorg Danielyan, went a little further in his opinion and said that Azerbaijan should adopt a new constitution. The former minister expressed his stupid thoughts on his account on the social network.

In the meantime, it was announced that the "Hayakwe" initiative has started work to form a constitutional movement. According to the information provided by Hayakwe's office, the initiative council will announce its steps regarding the struggle on February 6. It is noted that the movement will be created with the aim of "protecting" the declaration of independence and the constitution of Armenia.

It should be noted that the "Hayakve" initiative was created in the summer of last year. The goal was to collect 40,000 signatures stating that N. Pashinyan's recognition of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan is illegal. However, their initiative failed. Now, no one can guarantee that the same fate will not await the new initiative.

The discussions drew the attention of political experts in neighboring countries as well. Georgian political scientist Gela Vasadze said in an interview to the Armenian press that he had conversations with Azerbaijani guests and various experts on this topic: "As far as I understand, both sides declare that they recognize each other's territorial integrity. But they say in Baku that if the Armenian constitution and the decision of the Supreme Soviet prohibit this, how will Yerevan conclude the peace agreement? This is their position."

Vasadze noted that regarding Armenia's claims that Azerbaijan is the legal successor of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, this is true: "Georgia is also the legal successor of the Democratic Republic of Georgia. When I asked one of my Azerbaijani guests about this and asked him a simple question about what could happen between Georgia and Azerbaijan, he gave me a clear answer: Georgia fully recognized the Alma-Ata Declaration, while Armenia accepted it with reservations. There are ten reservations in the Alma-Ata Declaration, including the Karabakh issue. In general, I have the impression that it is very important for both Azerbaijan and Armenia that mutual distrust does not occur in the future, and that there are no cracks left for intervention."

As it can be seen, the debates regarding changes to the constitution or the adoption of a new basic law in Armenia are heating up more and more. Of course, time will tell what they will end up with.

Fikret SADIHOV,
political scientist

Armenia should either amend its constitution or adopt a new basic law. Because in the modern system of international relations, the territorial claims of one state to another is nonsense. It's not the 1990s anymore. New realities have emerged in the region. It is Azerbaijan that created those realities. The fact that there are still territorial claims against our country could, of course, be an indication that Armenia is an uncivilized and inadequate state in the full sense. Now the government understands the new realities. Internally, a number of forces oppose him. Radical oppositionists and revanchists are quite aggressive. But they are not the majority. The majority understands that it is absurd that such provisions remain in the Armenian constitution after Azerbaijan won the war and liberated its lands.

At the same time, the Azerbaijani side conveyed its official position to Yerevan. It was stated that the peace agreement will not be signed until the relevant provisions are removed from the constitution. Because in such a case, the peace agreement may become a meaningless document.

Səxavət HƏMİD
XQ