Former President Robert Kocharyan’s confidante has spoken of “systematic” fraud in Armenia’s recent constitutional referendum that formally approved the government-backed proposal of curtailing presidential powers in favor of the National Assembly.
Viktor Soghomonyan, the head of Kocharyan’s office, implied in an interview with the former president’s unofficial website, 2rd.am, on Wednesday that the December 6 voting fell short of giving a popular mandate to current President Serzh Sargsyan to turn the country into a parliamentary republic.
“What happened can hardly be called an expression of popular will on the constitutional changes,” Soghomonyan said. “The systematic nature of blatant violations registered by various political parties, civil movements, observers and media outlets deprives the referendum results of a popular perception of legitimacy.”
Representatives of President Sargsyan’s ruling Republican Party of Armenia were quick to reject the fraud claims. One of them, Vaghram Baghdasaryan, told RFE/RL’s Armenian Service that Sunday’s referendum was “incomparably” more democratic than national ballots held during Kocharyan’s 1998-2008 presidency, including the 2005 referendum on constitutional amendments.
Kocharyan had criticized the government-proposed changes to the Constitution in a series of interviews before the referendum.
He said they were unnecessary and even dangerous for Armenia as they contained risks of creating a one-party rule situation in the country.
The other former president, Levon Ter-Petrosyan (1991-1998), has also been critical of the controversial reform. His opposition Armenian National Congress (ANC) party had called for a “No” vote to turn the constitutional referendum into a “vote of no confidence” in the Sargsyan government. Currently, the ANC is disputing the outcome of the referendum along with a number of other opposition parties and groups.
In an interview with representatives of leading television channels on December 2, President Sargsyan also addressed criticism from his predecessors. He said there could be many reasons for such criticism, but singled out only one: “A person for ten years led our country, and in the process constitutions were adopted, the first Constitution, then constitutional changes. You see, the Basic Law of the country is like a child. Now, they [current authorities] want to change it. I understand it; had they thought otherwise, the Constitution would be different, or changes would be different. These are their convictions.”