Beniamin Matevosyan: to take or not to take the mandates, that is the question

(Key points on the new balance of power in the Armenian parliament)

The new political reality that has taken shape in Armenia following the parliamentary elections has prompted experts and citizens alike to revisit fundamental questions of power distribution. Against the backdrop of preliminary data from the Central Electoral Commission (CEC), according to which the Civil Contract party is set to receive 61 mandates, a heated debate has erupted in the public arena. Opposition forces find themselves facing a deeply difficult dilemma: whether to enter the newly convened National Assembly or whether refusing the mandates would prove a more effective method of resistance. The crisis is compounded by the fact that the ruling team falls short by two mandates of securing a three-fifths (3/5) parliamentary majority, and by nine mandates of achieving a two-thirds (2/3) majority. This denies the authorities an absolute monopoly, forcing them to seek compromise or attempt to win over wavering deputies.

Internal tensions are being stoked by statements from certain figures who are, in effect, urging the public to be patient with the incumbent prime minister. Claims are being made that Nikol Pashinyan is not seeking a third term, on the grounds that the previous two electoral cycles were snap elections. Such rhetoric, which de facto calls for tolerating the current leadership for at least another decade — is accompanied by active campaigning against the opposition accepting its mandates. Behind this lies a fairly transparent calculation: to clear the political field so that only the current authorities and a loyalist quasi-opposition remain, ready to pass governance back and forth between themselves. “Disillusioned” political actors, who failed to secure an official presence in the new parliament, are trying to play on citizens’ emotions, pushing the blocs that did make it in to relinquish their seats.

If approached pragmatically, however, it becomes clear that a parliamentary mandate is, above all, a tool. Its effectiveness depends entirely on whether there is a clear plan of action, be it short- or long-term. If the forces that have entered parliament have a viable plan for reshaping the political landscape, the mandates could prove decisive in changing the balance of power from within the National Assembly itself, bypassing street protests. Conversely, the absence of a strategy will turn a presence in the supreme legislative body into empty posturing. This would not only discredit the opposition in the eyes of voters but would also create serious difficulties in the future, when the time comes once again to fight for a place on the political stage of the Republic of Armenia. A key condition for effective parliamentary work is the integrity of the factions. Their ranks must not include individuals loyal to the ruling authorities’ narratives. Past experience shows that pivotal processes, such as impeachment attempts, were frequently blocked by the actions of individual deputies who had been embedded in party lists from the outset specifically to derail any consolidated opposition efforts.

The current balance of power leaves considerable room for maneuver. The Strong Armenia bloc is set to receive 28 mandates, the Armenia bloc — 11, and the Prosperous Armenia party — 5 mandates. In this configuration, the ruling Civil Contract’s position looks vulnerable. Having secured less than half of the vote, the authorities can no longer unilaterally amend the Constitution as demanded by external forces. Moreover, the sharp decline in support for the ruling party recorded at numerous polling stations following the vote recount gives the opposition serious grounds for applying pressure. The Strong Armenia bloc, led by Narek Karapetyan, has already announced its intention to appeal to the CEC demanding the annulment of the election results and a review of the ruling team’s outcome. The willingness to take the matter to the Constitutional Court signals the opposition’s resolve to curtail the authorities’ influence. Under such circumstances, hastily renouncing the mandates would amount to voluntary capitulation, whereas skillful use of the parliamentary platform, combined with legal pressure, could entirely reshape the balance of power in the country.

Think about it…