Tweet
PRESS RELEASE
The Heritage Party
31 Moscovian Street
Yerevan, Armenia
Tel.: (+374 - 10) 53.69.13
Fax: (+374 - 10) 53.26.97
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Website: www.heritage.am
June 9, 2007
RAFFI HOVANNISIAN RESPONDS...
Yerevan--Excerpted below are Heritage Party chairman Raffi K.
Hovannisian's replies to questions received recently from various
Armenian news agencies.
1. How effective will the new coalition government be, especially
against the background of widespread violations of the fundamental
principles of a rule-of-law state?
--It is still early to offer a substantiated response. A healthy
foundation will support effective work; a partisan basis will beget
parochial politics-as-usual.
2. How would you evaluate the lack of solemnity, one might even say
the theatricality of the National Assembly's first session?
--Heritage was not present. The ultimate assessment belongs to the
nation.
3. When does the Heritage fraction of Parliament plan to report to
work? How would you interpret the pedantic statements made to the
state media by Tigran Torosyan about Heritage's lack of a legal
motivation--and political experience--for its non-participation in the
first session?
--I have no desire to answer the honorable Mr. Torosyan point by
point. Let me simply say that the characterizations attributed to him
by the media do not reflect the true spirit and substance of our
telephone conversation.
We have already publicized Heritage's letter to him. For us and our
brand of politics both the legal and the moral underpinnings are
essential and inalienable. First, pursuant to the National Assembly's
rules and regulations, we were obliged to give advance notice to the
Speaker of the impossibility of our participation and the reasons
therefor. If there is a more appropriate addressee, as the gentleman
seems to believe, let it be known and we will happily resend our
letter of notification.
Second, on the issue of the timing of the first session, reference is
being made to the Constitution and the National Assembly's rules, but
nobody seems to want to note that neither of these documents makes
mention of June 7. On the contrary, an elementary mathematical
addition of the Thursdays referred to therein results in a clear
determination of May 31. If the relevant state body--whichever one it
is--makes a capricious interpretation and changes the date for the
first session, then at the very least it must give due notice of that
change, however unconstitutional it might be. Rumors, presumptions,
and press comments are not official methods of notice in a lawful,
democratic, and sovereign state. This is not to mention the lack of
information as to the time and means for receipt of the parliamentary
credentials as well as a variety of other organizational shortcomings.
At the bottom of all this is the imperative of dignity for the
Republic, its citizens and public servants.
And, finally, the validity of the parliamentary elections is currently
at issue before the Constitutional Court. It is precisely on the basis
of jurisprudence, ethics and, yes, political science that Heritage has
considered and made its civic decision to wait until the Court's
verdict and not, by our conduct, to prejudice it. All other
insinuations, judgmental diatribes, and sponsored gossip are worthy of
a banana republic, but should have no place in our country.
The Heritage Party
31 Moscovian Street
Yerevan, Armenia
Tel.: (+374 - 10) 53.69.13
Fax: (+374 - 10) 53.26.97
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Website: www.heritage.am
June 9, 2007
RAFFI HOVANNISIAN RESPONDS...
Yerevan--Excerpted below are Heritage Party chairman Raffi K.
Hovannisian's replies to questions received recently from various
Armenian news agencies.
1. How effective will the new coalition government be, especially
against the background of widespread violations of the fundamental
principles of a rule-of-law state?
--It is still early to offer a substantiated response. A healthy
foundation will support effective work; a partisan basis will beget
parochial politics-as-usual.
2. How would you evaluate the lack of solemnity, one might even say
the theatricality of the National Assembly's first session?
--Heritage was not present. The ultimate assessment belongs to the
nation.
3. When does the Heritage fraction of Parliament plan to report to
work? How would you interpret the pedantic statements made to the
state media by Tigran Torosyan about Heritage's lack of a legal
motivation--and political experience--for its non-participation in the
first session?
--I have no desire to answer the honorable Mr. Torosyan point by
point. Let me simply say that the characterizations attributed to him
by the media do not reflect the true spirit and substance of our
telephone conversation.
We have already publicized Heritage's letter to him. For us and our
brand of politics both the legal and the moral underpinnings are
essential and inalienable. First, pursuant to the National Assembly's
rules and regulations, we were obliged to give advance notice to the
Speaker of the impossibility of our participation and the reasons
therefor. If there is a more appropriate addressee, as the gentleman
seems to believe, let it be known and we will happily resend our
letter of notification.
Second, on the issue of the timing of the first session, reference is
being made to the Constitution and the National Assembly's rules, but
nobody seems to want to note that neither of these documents makes
mention of June 7. On the contrary, an elementary mathematical
addition of the Thursdays referred to therein results in a clear
determination of May 31. If the relevant state body--whichever one it
is--makes a capricious interpretation and changes the date for the
first session, then at the very least it must give due notice of that
change, however unconstitutional it might be. Rumors, presumptions,
and press comments are not official methods of notice in a lawful,
democratic, and sovereign state. This is not to mention the lack of
information as to the time and means for receipt of the parliamentary
credentials as well as a variety of other organizational shortcomings.
At the bottom of all this is the imperative of dignity for the
Republic, its citizens and public servants.
And, finally, the validity of the parliamentary elections is currently
at issue before the Constitutional Court. It is precisely on the basis
of jurisprudence, ethics and, yes, political science that Heritage has
considered and made its civic decision to wait until the Court's
verdict and not, by our conduct, to prejudice it. All other
insinuations, judgmental diatribes, and sponsored gossip are worthy of
a banana republic, but should have no place in our country.