Despite the progress on border demarcation and demarcation between Armenia and Azerbaijan, another issue has emerged that could prevent the signing of the long-awaited agreement on normalizing relations. Baku is now demanding that Yerevan first remove from the constitution the controversial preamble that refers to the 1990 declaration of independence. The Armenian government has indicated that it may remove the preamble based on the 1989 decision on the reunification of the Socialist Republic of Armenia and the mountainous region of Karabakh, but would not like to be publicly lectured by a foreign country to do so.
Azerbaijan counters that the preamble effectively claims part of its internationally recognised territory and is therefore not merely an internal matter.
The issue is not new, but its removal has not previously been a prerequisite for the conclusion of a peace agreement. The timing, coming amid ongoing protests in Yerevan against Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, was also surprising. The constitutional amendments are already problematic enough given that other controversial changes may also be on the way, such as removing various problematic symbols from the official coat of arms. This is also part of Pashinyan's stated goal of transforming the country from a revanchist historical Armenia to a more conciliatory and modern Armenia of reality.
While Pashinyan has wanted to amend the constitution since coming to power after the 2018 Velvet Revolution, Baku sees the issue of constitutional reform only in the post-conflict paradigm. Although it did not envisage the above changes at the time, it would have made sense in any case to adopt a new constitution after removing the previous regime and rejecting all its mainly negative features. Georgia did the same after the Rose Revolution in 2003.
Only the 2020 pandemic and the 44-day war, as well as early elections in 2021, have prevented him from doing so, and so far there is no reason to believe that anything has changed in his intentions. He may have further reasons to do so, not only as part of efforts to normalize relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey, but also to advance his position as prime minister. The opposition has also convincingly charged that a symbolic transition from the Third Republic to the Fourth Republic was the only way to guarantee his political survival and absolve him of responsibility for the 44-day war.
The real question is whether a constitutional referendum can even be held when the majority of voters remain apolitical. Last year's municipal elections in the capital saw the lowest voter turnout in history. The latest demands from Baku are even more disappointing as the opposition claims Pashinyan is only being told what to do. Baku has also raised the issues of the 1992 Khojaly genocide and the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group, adding to the already considerable pressure on Pashinyan.
Moreover, prematurely imposing constitutional change on an unprepared or disinterested electorate could set off a failed referendum if turnout is insufficient. This has happened before.
While observing the 2005 constitutional referendum, I remember, like many of my colleagues who shared their personal experiences, finding all the polling stations in my constituency empty. In the polling station in Artaşat, the estate of then-Government Minister Hovik Abrahamian, all the members of the Election Commission (PEC) were sitting there because there were no voters. We eventually found them enjoying horovac (barbecue) in a secluded back room, since the vote count would be made up later, after all.
But the days of faking numbers may now be a thing of the past.
Instead, a more calm political environment is needed and a healthy national debate must be fostered. Otherwise, it seems particularly irresponsible to jeopardize the importance and necessity of a peace agreement. It remains to be seen whether Aliyev will stick to his demands or if they are simply a last-minute bargaining chip, but the public must also accept the contents of the new constitution.
However, Azerbaijani MP Rasim Musabekov recently pointed out that any agreement on normalization of relations would need to be ratified by both countries’ parliaments. This could be a solution to the current constitutional impasse, although it may evoke sad memories of when the Armenian-Turkish Protocol was not ratified and was ultimately withdrawn in 2009. Even an agreement signed by Armenia and Azerbaijan would be at least symbolic for the peoples of both countries and would indicate a plan for the necessary work.
Ratification could take place once the referendum has been approved, but even then nothing should be left to chance.
Armenia will hold parliamentary elections no later than mid-2026. Holding a referendum in parallel with these elections would at least guarantee a higher turnout than if it were held alone. It would also provide time to improve relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan and implement some much-needed confidence-building measures at the same time. Staking a peace agreement on a premature referendum seems a bit risky and reckless.
Source: Onnik James Krikorian is a journalist, photojournalist and consultant from the UK who has covered the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict since 1994. Photo: Constitution of Armenia The views expressed in opinion articles and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners.
