Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everyone Must Understand Role At Present, Responsibility For Future

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Everyone Must Understand Role At Present, Responsibility For Future

    EVERYONE MUST UNDERSTAND THEIR ROLE AT PRESENT AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR FUTURE

    Lragir.am
    1 July 06


    Recent there has been a lot of consideration that the NKR president is
    likely to run a third term. It is interesting and distressing that
    these are based on rumors about the wish of a definite person. `Ask
    anyone in the street.

    The majority would like to be president.' I understand the comparison
    is not successful. Nevertheless, there is something in common in
    terms of wishes.It should be noted that besides the wish, which is
    common for both cases, there is also the reality, which is supposed to
    regulate such wishes. The point is what the reality is. Let us not go
    deeper into it now, helping the political scientists, who work for
    definite people and receive a salary (or money inan envelope). Let us
    dwell on the reasons, which seem to be forceful arguments against the
    idea of a third term, independent of the wishes of the candidate.

    1. Since 1988 all our steps and decisions have seriously and carefully
    complied with the rules and logic of a democratic society. Their
    implementation sometimes acquired a certain shade, like the actions of
    the government during one election or another. But these shades have
    never really trespassed the usual frame of democracy. A violation of
    the law on the president would first of all cause suspicions whether
    our intention to build a democratic society is genuine, which has been
    commended by the entire civilized world so far, placing us superior to
    Azerbaijan in this context. They cannot cheat us like in the election
    of governors in Russia several years ago, when some laws were annulled
    on adoption of others. The effort to name an unimportant figure, who
    would resign in a couple of months, enabling the former president to
    be named again is also impractical. I would like to repeat that we
    must display our commitment to real democracy rather than the skills
    of pro-governmental lawyers to the world.

    2. We must keep in mind that in 1994 our parliament, which later
    elected the first president, disagreed about the introduction of this
    type of governance. The participants of this event know how this law
    was adopted.

    Now we are told that time showed that this type of governance is not
    effective. We are told by people who used to uphold it, or `enjoy' it,
    if we may say so. And they decline to explain the mistake, whether it
    was corrected or not, who is to blame and for what, and so on. It
    makes think about the Soviet years, when hazy formulations `persuaded
    people' about thenecessity to adopt it. I very much hope that those
    times are over. But as they say, time will show.

    Now let us return to the change of the system of governance, offered
    in the draft constitution (by the way, it merely a draft, and the
    confidence of some people that it will be adopted does not allow the
    author to say that this type of governance is already an adopted
    decision). And it (the draft) is said to provide for a
    semi-presidential governance. It is clear without going into detail
    that the powers of the president will be restricted. And immediately
    the `worm of suspicion' stirs: isn't this intendedto pass the real
    power to a definite person, who will be occupying another post? If our
    `worm' is mistaken, we are happy, and if not, again the skills of
    lawyers are noticed (certainly, not so original). In other words, the
    government may try to name a president, who does not have real
    political power, and the country will be ruled from another post,
    which would be empowered by the new Constitution.By the way, a similar
    situation may occur in Armenia as well. So, we have to repeat that
    this approach is not related to the tenets of democracy we dream of
    establishing in our homeland.

    I think we will have time to discuss these serious problems again and
    again. It would be much better if the intellectual political
    potential of Karabakh worked for the welfare of the society rather
    than the definite interests of certain people. Everyone who is able to
    perceive the essence of what happened, and especially those who have
    influence on it, must keep in their mind what sacrifices it took to
    achieve what we have now. Everyone must realize their role at present
    and their responsibility for the future. And let God help us.


    SERGEY KALANTARYAN
Working...
X