In Constitutional Arrangements, Would Anyone Want to Hold Power? - Samvel Babayan

Leader of the United Homeland party, Samvel Babayan, has released a statement saying:

“Against the backdrop of possible internal political developments in Artsakh, the informational exchange of fire is intensifying. The aim to place oneself in power through political realignments undeniably justifies the means. Since the national elections in 2020, I have consistently emphasized, including publicly, the importance of constitutional reforms.

The issue was also crucial within the framework of the cooperation memorandum signed between the ‘Free Homeland-KMD’ and ‘United Homeland’ parties. The need for constitutional amendments became accentuated in the post-war period. The initiative for constitutional change, with its strategy of one step forward, two steps back, led to a constitutional crisis, the efforts to resolve which were linked to personnel policies and/or the replacement of certain individuals. This approach was also merely situational, which instead of restoring balance, further deepened the crisis.

In Artsakh's ‘super-presidential’ governance model, it seems that the branches of power have been separated, but no practical mechanisms for balance exist; everything starts and ends with the presidency. In other words, anyone can make decisions, but the responsibility for the consequences of all those decisions is again attributed to the president. This is why everyone is in power but without capability, all are endowed with authority but without accountability. Even if they wish, they cannot assume it; the ‘monopoly’ of responsibility is reserved by the Constitution for the president.

In such constitutional arrangements, does anyone actually wish to hold power? Can anyone aspire to occupy a position? Possibly someone, but not me.

The constitutional crisis created in Artsakh, along with all its consequences, rests on the conscience of the political and social circles in Artsakh, who suffer solely from the obsession of holding positions, feeding off the state budget, and striving to be as close as possible to the centers of power, without a willingness to share political and social responsibility.

The current situation in and around Artsakh is a direct consequence of the constitutional crisis; therefore, instead of engaging in the fruitless task of mitigating its repercussions, we should all direct our efforts toward eliminating its causes. I urge the concerned circles, with the preservation of the last remnants of Artsakh’s subjectivity, to direct all possible efforts toward resolving the crisis, which can become feasible exclusively through constitutional amendments.”