Referendum in Armenia: lessons to be learned

Article published in 31/12/2005 Issue
Caucaz
By Laurence RITTER in Yerevan
Translated by Victoria BRYAN

The Council of Europe, and for that matter, the whole of the European Union, could not fail to congratulate the record level of ‘yes’ votes recorded during the referendum on constitutional reform in Armenia on 27 November. But the satisfaction at seeing the law adopted – 93% voting ‘yes’ at a turnout of over 65% - was tempered by the wave of fraud allegations.[...].

[...] On the eve of the vote, many people admitted to not really understanding the extent of the proposed reforms, which 2.4 million people were supposed to give their opinions on.

However, some of these reforms, which were described as “a step in the right direction towards more democracy” by the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission, which approved mot of the final draft, will have a distinct impact on the daily life of Armenians, both those in Armenia and those in the diaspora.
[...]
Basically, the law seeks to re-balance power between the parliament and the president. Some institutions, such as the law courts, were targeted by the reforms. The president’s powers concerning the nomination and referral of judges are substantially restricted by the reforms. Equally, the procedure of nominating members to the highly controversial Television and Radio Commission, which is in charge of awarding broadcasting frequencies each year – and which has been criticised for being solely a instrument of the ruling party - is also set to be given more legal structure. Ditto for the ombudsman for human rights, while the possibility to elect the mayor of Yerevan, who has been named by the government up until now, is also set to become a reality.

Finally, and this is an important point, this new law revokes the article in the constitution outlawing dual nationality.[...].
[...]
[...] the opposition, which denounced the referendum, has shown itself incapable of being able to reach agreement and propose a true counter-programme, apart from the plan of toppling the current government for whatever reason comes to hand that day. Choosing to focus on vote-rigging in a referendum where the results seemed painless was, without doubt, the last straw for an opposition that is structurally weak and badly organised.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.