«How much longer can everything be equated to the ground, how much longer can rights be distorted?» Constitutional expert

Constitutional expert Gor Hovhannisyan has made a Facebook post addressing the procedure for the resignation of the Government and the election of a Prime Minister.

The post states: “A highly primitive interpretation of the Constitution at the highest official level. My heart is disturbed by this level. The third part of Article 149 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia is being interpreted and applied for the second time in a meaning that is diametrically opposed to the purpose of that norm. Thus, the purpose of the third part of Article 149 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia is to ensure the stability of the parliament. This norm simultaneously rejects the right of the Parliament to dissolve itself. The Parliament of Armenia does not have the right to dissolve itself!!! Therefore, the formulations in the first sentence of the third part of Article 149: 'In the case of not electing a Prime Minister...' and in the second sentence 'If... a Prime Minister is not elected...' do not mean that the Parliament deliberately decides not to elect a Prime Minister, but rather that the political forces represented in the Parliament are so fragmented that they are not actually gathering the necessary votes to elect a Prime Minister. Simply put, there is no majority supporting the government in the Parliament, which is why the Parliament, through its utmost good faith efforts, is truly unable (not unwilling) to elect a Prime Minister. And if this is repeated, then as an extreme measure (ultima ratio), the Parliament is dissolved so that the people can form a new parliamentary majority through new elections, which will be able to elect a Prime Minister and form a government supporting it.

When Article 149, part 3, is interpreted and applied in such a way that the Parliament has the right to deliberately not elect a Prime Minister (even though there is a specific candidate for whom the necessary majority exists), in order to dissolve and hold new parliamentary elections, it is nothing but the self-dissolution of the Parliament, which, I repeat, is prohibited by our Constitution. How much longer can everything be equated to the ground, how much longer can rights be distorted? Why do you embed rules in the laws that you later have to ignore? What is the point? Why don't you change the Constitution and give the Parliament the right to self-dissolve, so you can peacefully do what you are doing now without distorting the Constitution? Why don't you embed the very rules in the laws that you are factually following?”