Is Vahe Grigoryan Dissatisfied with the Prime Minister?

The newspaper "Zhamanak" writes: "Constitutional Court Judge Vahe Grigoryan has stated that the parliamentary majority has not even approached the resolution of the crisis surrounding the Constitutional Court. His remarks refer to the National Assembly's appeal to dismiss Hrayr Tovmasyan, which was rejected by the Court. Grigoryan believes that the question regarding Tovmasyan, or any question for that matter, cannot be rejected or accepted by the Constitutional Court, as that body is not legitimate. Grigoryan's view on this issue is already quite well known.

Of course, this raises the question: if the Constitutional Court does not exist as a legitimate body, what is Grigoryan doing there? At the same time, his evaluation of the activities of the Constitutional Court and the parliamentary majority has an interesting political context. The fact is that Vahe Grigoryan was appointed as a judge of the Constitutional Court by the parliamentary majority. Now the situation is intriguing: Grigoryan is misjudging the actions and overall approach of the parliamentary majority regarding the situation surrounding the Constitutional Court. In other words, there seems to be a contradiction between the approaches of the parliamentary majority and the judge they appointed.

This raises another question: how did the majority choose Vahe Grigoryan as a Constitutional Court judge if there is disagreement on conceptual issues about the future of the Court and practically about the future of Armenia's judiciary, since the Constitutional Court is a key and fundamental institution? The issue is not who is correct or incorrect in their approach—whether it is Grigoryan, the parliamentary majority, or someone else. This existing contradiction speaks to quite delicate political layers, as a crisis has developed that is delineating a crisis situation in political processes.

For example, would Grigoryan submit his candidacy for the position of judge if he had doubts that the parliamentary majority would not support his approach regarding the Constitutional Court?

On the other hand, there is another question: does the leader of the parliamentary majority, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, support Vahe Grigoryan's approach? Pashinyan once stated that he was shocked by Grigoryan's letter. Is Grigoryan's criticism or dissatisfaction—stating that the National Assembly has not even approached the resolution of the crisis surrounding the Constitutional Court—also aimed at the political body's leader, accusing Pashinyan of not addressing the crisis? Or is Grigoryan trying to create dissatisfaction with the parliamentary majority's approach to Pashinyan?

Another question remains regarding the attitudes within the parliamentary majority towards Grigoryan's approach and dissatisfaction. Who among the parliamentary majority believes that Grigoryan is right, while the majority is wrong?"