Armenia has adopted the democratization model. People wage struggle so that democracy takes root in the state. These proposed constitutional changes, from the perspective of democratization, are very dangerous. This was the opinion noted by Armen Grigoryan, a member of the “No Pasaran” initiative, during a ‘Status Quo’ TV program.
“There is a debate as to which model is more democratic – the parliamentary, semi-presidential, or the presidential? But the question put forth is wrong because all the above models can be democratic. What is important is to understand the conditions in which a given government accepts this or that model. Generally, studies show that democracy is harder to achieve in parliamentary systems than in presidential or semi-presidential ones. Why? Because the last two models possess one important advantage – the leading figure of the country is forced to leave office after two terms in office. Naturally, this is the case if term limits aren’t lifted, as was the case in Azerbaijan. In the case of a parliamentary system this danger exists; that the leading figure and his/her party can remain in control for longer. As a result, the system becomes entrenched and turns into one party rule. The process of democratizing the state becomes problematic.” – Armen Grigoryan.
Grigoryan believes that if the principles of formulating executive and legislative powers are incorrectly defined by the constitution, then the rest of its clauses regarding human rights, the judicial system, and other sectors will be impossible to execute fully.