How would you evaluate 20 years of independence as a leader and organizer of the movement "Independence through the Referendum"? Have your expectations come true?

Enemies of our people did everything to give all the political power in independent Armenia to those who were not associated with the idea of independence, with its dream and goal.   Sure, we strove for the independence because it is a normal way of life for our nation. The independence is especially important for us to settle number of national issues. Regrettably, we should notice that today Armenia is not free.  

For that reason, I gave up many of my goals and in 1998 started the constitutional reforms and not only took this responsibility but also prepared the society. Nobody had this kind of issue in the agenda then. Only the Union of National Self-determination voiced the necessity of constitutional reforms. Before we said it is a must to have a Constitution, however a shameful Constitution was created. The essence of all these changes was one: to expand human rights and make Armenia a democratic country. Unfortunately, I did not succeed to complete the process of reforms because I was not the one who had power, who was a master of the situation. These changes improved somehow our situation but Armenia is not democratic so far.

The most important thing is that within last hundred years it is the only case when a group of people programming a system of steps for the nation, sets the goal and achieves that goal. Communists spoke about the world revolution, the result of which was many killed people, thus it turned to be a lie. Dashnaks ("Armenian Revolutionary Federation" party - Dashnaktsutyun in Armenian-author) supported the idea of autonomy  of the Western Armenia and the idea ended up with the genocide, Hnchaks (Social Democrat party-author) or before them the Armenakans (Democratic Liberal Party-author) said that they should restore one kingdom or the Western Armenia should be unified by the support of Europe but that did not happen. We even obtained the independence in 1918-20 and lost it.

And now we face the fact: in 1973 a group of Armenians headed by Paruyr Hayrikyan says "Independence through the Referendum", gives up many things, develops a program for the nation and today the 20th anniversary of that program is celebrated. The mediocrity wants to look good, that's why they try to hide things which are really valuable for the nation. However, the important is that we managed to compel those, who even could not dream about that, to do something.

And now, again I leave aside seemingly substantial and urgent things, since the most important thing for me is the establishment of the perfect system of democracy which I have created theoretically for the states with majoritarian and proportional systems of election both for unitary or federal state models.

Applying this model will turn Armenia into the most democratic state in the world. It is very simple, but someone should apply it so that others see what a true democracy is.

Which model of democracy do you suggest?

The model of democracy that I have created is new but it is based on the old principles. The core principle is equality of rights and the most important thing is that people enjoy this equality of rights not only during the elections but during their entire lives. It mainly concerns the equality of citizen's rights while participating in the governance of the country. No matter how often we say that all rights are important, we understand that for people's destiny political rights are the most important because by enjoying political rights and becoming master of the situation people can enjoy other rights: health, labor, rest etc. Everything depends on the position of incumbent authorities.  

The supreme task for Armenia today is the creation of free Armenia which means to make a country where people feel free and feel they are owners of the country. Today people feel free to leave Armenia but the situation is not favorable for people who want to feel themselves as owners of the country because citizens do not feel that the authorities depend on them. While the system model that I have suggested implies that political leaders gradually become secondary bodies and the citizen feels that for example the elected MP is just a mediator.  

My proposal does not relate to Armenia only. My initiative should lead to the Universal Declaration of Democracy for entire world similar to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I follow a mild path to achieve this universal model of the state and leave а discretion for each nation but not in a way that anyone says "we have our model of democracy". This system will lead to the Universal Declaration of Democracy which will be mandatory somehow. This will save the world from the obligations imposed but adventurists that have in their basis a notion "we have our own model of democracy".

What is the situation with realization of the rights today in Armenia?

Generally, in all countries of the world there is dissatisfaction with the situation on human rights and it is natural, normal, because otherwise that would not be a progress. If we compare with the soviet times, of course there is a huge progress. However, it is not correct to compare the situation with the soviet times now, 20 years after the independence.

Armenia is trying to come closer to Europe with its legislation, it took certain obligations. From this perspective, it seems we do not have systemic problems with human rights in general except for the democracy where systemic changes are needed.

As for the other aspects of life, there is freedom of speech in Armenia on one hand but on the other hand we know that the freedom of speech is constrained by the financial advantage of oligarchs.  In Armenia the Constitution is violated since people from state agencies involved in the political activities are also involved in businesses, while they are not entitled to: they should serve to the state, the people. This violation entails other violations and people who accumulated wealth are merged with the state system. We can complain that Armenia in its recent past had political prisoners and it confirms that the situation with human rights in Armenia is not very good.

There is the institute of Ombudsman in Armenia which could become a significant factor in our country if functioned properly. I do not want to deteriorate anyone's work but I should say that today the activity of the RA Ombudsman's institution is not the most prominent while it should have been so.

This state institution funded by people has a great role in the field of human rights and should play a role of mediator in certain fields between the authorities and citizens. However, that would be better if we feel that this institution is everywhere and people really have a defender who constrains the authorities. Their job is not easy too because they should have free media as a supporter. But our media is not very free and there are inside tensions. Part of the comparatively influential media struggling with the authorities is not enough influential and the other part, very significant part of it, especially electronic media, are focused on the support of the state agencies.

I would not say the situation with human rights in Armenia is tragic or extremely bad. Simply all those steps that could help to expand human rights should be taken rapidly and the most important among these steps and changes are those that promote citizen to become the owners of their country, become not just feel. Today I focus all my efforts in that direction.

Within these 20 years was a civil society created which is able to influence the state in decision making process?

The civil society may influence of course, one of the means is rally, you can organize a rally but its influence depends on whom you refer and what is their mood. While the civil society should be a master of situation, i.e. it should not only influence but also bring changes. Therefore we should have a really perfect election system, again we return to the same issue. Not only non governmental organizations promote the establishment of the civil society but also parties, all together should be influential.

As a matter of fact, people determined then very little during the process of formation of the authorities. More or less proper election was in 1998 and it was the only time when there were no complaints.

Today whoever you ask, everyone says that the elections of 1990 or 1991 were fair, it is not true, none of these elections were fair and none of them had any element of election.

One of the essential preconditions for establishment of the civil society is that citizens feel themselves as valuable and not only should they feel it, but also see the results. Therefore, they should be involved in state affairs. This requires traditions which are present in the European countries. Although these countries do not have perfect democratic election system, the traditions foster that the imperfections of the system are not noticed. In the countries where there are neither traditions nor perfect system, the civil society is not formed.

Interview by Mary Aleksanyan
Source  www.hra.am