Radar Armenia‘s interlocutor is political scientist Armen Vardanyan.
– Deputy of the National Assembly “Hayastan” faction, Garnik Danielyan, stated that the opposition should use all the instruments and that, for him, the acceptable candidate for the prime minister is Galstanyan. Considering that Constitution implies something else, how do you interpret his statement?
– I think Bagrat Galstanyan is much more honest with the people than Garnik Danielyan because, unlike Danielyan, Bagrat Srbazan clearly states that he is a dual citizen. He cannot become prime minister because it contradicts the Constitution and laws of Armenia.
– In your opinion, will it be possible to impeach Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan and the people gathered around him from power?
– I don’t see any sign of impeachment. Moreover, even at this stage, I do not see an opportunity to put the issue on the NA agenda because one of the opposition MPs, Ishkhan Zakaryan, seems to have disappeared, and they cannot find him, so his one decisive vote has a decisive significance. The issue is put on the agenda. But even if the impeachment agenda succeeds in gathering the necessary signatures and taking the problem to the National Assembly, I do not see any sign that deputies from the government representatives will join the opposition and that the opposition movement will manage to secure the necessary number of votes. And suppose they enter the National Assembly with that agenda. In that case, it is not excluded that the process will fail, and no one will be able to start an impeachment process against Nikol Pashinyan for another six months because that is what the law provides. So, the opposition is at a dead end. They are trying to get Nikol Pashinyan’s power pyramid to give way and collapse through public pressure, but there is no such critical mass. That leader who can create cracks in the pyramid of power and, accordingly, get some of the representatives of the government to join the movement, or Nikol Pashinyan, should resign. The movement will fade over time. I doubt they will succeed.
– In general, to what extent do the clergyman’s leadership of the movement and his political statements fit the clergyman’s code of conduct and mission?
– As for leading this movement as a clergyman, I consider it a terrible precedent. There is no such thing in any democratic country. Such a thing does not happen in a normal country. A similar thing has happened in several countries whose experience could be better for the world. We should not imitate it. It would be good if the church did not get involved in political processes because it would also lead to the decline of its authority. They could have tried many other ways. By entering into a dialogue with the government or in different ways to make their voice heard, the government, in some cases, would go to the solution of the issues raised by the church. And this path chosen by the cleric does not promise anything good, first of all, for the church’s reputation. And as far as I know, some church members were categorically against such a movement being started by the church.
