Tweet
CONSTITUTION PROTECTS US WHEN WE PROTECT CONSTITUTION
Igor Muradyan
KarabakhOpen
06-06-2007 13:32:34
Despite expectations the issue of the lowlands of Karabakh has
considerably worried the NKR government, who decided to attack the
opponents whom President Ghukasyan referred to as "elements". An
element is a fundamental notion, and is used in either philosophical
or criminal contexts depending on the level of education of those who
pronounce it. In this case, the pronouncement by one of the "elements"
of the government of Karabakh, Speaker Ashot Ghulyan, a highly
amiable person, who was unfairly pushed out of the pre-election stage,
perhaps on the basis of an instruction, is interesting. Ashot Ghulyan
questions the expediency of public debates on the problem of the
lowlands of Karabakh, because he thinks like his boss Ghukasyan that
"elements" launched this debate "sitting in their cozy offices." The
speaker thinks the NKR Constitution (by the way, it is said to have
been adopted hastily) guarantees or is at least an important argument
against returning the lowlands of Karabakh. Of course, we would like it
to be so. The speaker references to the efficiency of the legislature
but what relation do the guarantees of indivisibility of borders
have? It should be noted that this provision of the NKR Constitution
is blurred and ambiguous, it allows for different interpretations and,
in fact, also manipulations. There is opinion that from the legal
point of view this provision of the Constitution is imperfect and in
fact it replaces a legal act with a political declaration.
In reality, a constitution does not guarantee the indivisibility of
state borders in certain historical circumstances. For instance,
pre-war Czechoslovakia also had a Constitution but this did not
prevent the government from passing the external decision to divide
the country. The Soviet Union also had a constitution. But we need
not depart. Who remembers the December 1, 1989 decision of the Supreme
Soviet of Armenia and the National Council of Artsakh on "Unification"
except the group of irresponsible "elements"? Meanwhile, this act
would be sufficient to solve all the possible problems. The regime in
Armenia supported by the Karabakh government very soon devalued this
decision and discarded it. What does a Constitution cost if nobody
guarantees its application and honoring?
But can President Ghukasyan guarantee the Constitution and generally
the statehood, whose thoughts meander along media reports?
Igor Muradyan
KarabakhOpen
06-06-2007 13:32:34
Despite expectations the issue of the lowlands of Karabakh has
considerably worried the NKR government, who decided to attack the
opponents whom President Ghukasyan referred to as "elements". An
element is a fundamental notion, and is used in either philosophical
or criminal contexts depending on the level of education of those who
pronounce it. In this case, the pronouncement by one of the "elements"
of the government of Karabakh, Speaker Ashot Ghulyan, a highly
amiable person, who was unfairly pushed out of the pre-election stage,
perhaps on the basis of an instruction, is interesting. Ashot Ghulyan
questions the expediency of public debates on the problem of the
lowlands of Karabakh, because he thinks like his boss Ghukasyan that
"elements" launched this debate "sitting in their cozy offices." The
speaker thinks the NKR Constitution (by the way, it is said to have
been adopted hastily) guarantees or is at least an important argument
against returning the lowlands of Karabakh. Of course, we would like it
to be so. The speaker references to the efficiency of the legislature
but what relation do the guarantees of indivisibility of borders
have? It should be noted that this provision of the NKR Constitution
is blurred and ambiguous, it allows for different interpretations and,
in fact, also manipulations. There is opinion that from the legal
point of view this provision of the Constitution is imperfect and in
fact it replaces a legal act with a political declaration.
In reality, a constitution does not guarantee the indivisibility of
state borders in certain historical circumstances. For instance,
pre-war Czechoslovakia also had a Constitution but this did not
prevent the government from passing the external decision to divide
the country. The Soviet Union also had a constitution. But we need
not depart. Who remembers the December 1, 1989 decision of the Supreme
Soviet of Armenia and the National Council of Artsakh on "Unification"
except the group of irresponsible "elements"? Meanwhile, this act
would be sufficient to solve all the possible problems. The regime in
Armenia supported by the Karabakh government very soon devalued this
decision and discarded it. What does a Constitution cost if nobody
guarantees its application and honoring?
But can President Ghukasyan guarantee the Constitution and generally
the statehood, whose thoughts meander along media reports?