Rubinyan Urges Opposition to Allow Constitutional Referendum and Lead ‘No’ Campaign

YEREVAN — Armenian National Assembly Speaker Ruben Rubinyan has urged opposition lawmakers not to obstruct a proposed referendum on a new constitution, even if they oppose its adoption.

Speaking to reporters on October 30, Rubinyan suggested that opposition parties could vote in favor of submitting the proposed constitution to a nationwide referendum and subsequently lead the campaign against its approval.

According to Rubinyan, such an approach would allow the opposition to present its arguments directly to voters while preserving the public’s right to decide the issue.

Rubinyan also addressed possible political scenarios surrounding the constitutional reform process and the recent physical confrontation between ruling-party and opposition lawmakers in parliament.

The deputy speaker rejected suggestions that the government had reached a political deadlock over the proposed constitution, noting that several possible approaches remain under discussion.

“If it were a deadlock, how could we even be having this conversation? The fact that we are discussing it means there is no deadlock. Certain scenarios are being considered, although there is no clear picture yet. A deadlock exists when no further scenarios can be discussed. If options are still being considered, then it is not a deadlock,” Rubinyan told reporters.

He also dismissed claims that the proposed constitutional changes were being shaped by demands from Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev.

“No one in Armenia is preparing to adopt an ‘Aliyev constitution.’ What is being proposed in Armenia is a new constitution—an Armenian constitution that will be approved by the Armenian people. The Armenian people cannot vote in favor of a constitution that is not their own, because by voting ‘yes,’ they themselves declare that the constitution belongs to them,” Rubinyan stated.

Rubinyan further argued that opposition lawmakers have not yet seen the text of the proposed constitution and therefore cannot reasonably pass judgment on its contents in advance.

He also maintained that the new constitution is being drafted entirely from scratch. Consequently, he argued, it would be inaccurate to suggest that the Declaration of Independence or references to it were being removed from an existing constitutional text.