Armenia at a Crossroads: Pashinyan's Constitutional Gambit Sparks Controversy

In a bold move, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has set forth a proposal to overhaul the country's constitution, citing the imperative to align the foundational law with evolving global realities. Pashinyan emphasized the necessity for a constitution that would enhance the Republic of Armenia's competitiveness and resilience in the face of shifting geopolitical dynamics.

"We must have a Constitution that will make the Republic of Armenia more competitive and more viable in the new geopolitical and regional conditions," asserted Pashinyan, underscoring the demand for a comprehensive overhaul rather than mere amendments.

However, skepticism abounds among Armenian political analysts, who foresee a potential consolidation of the prime minister's power under the new constitution, portraying Pashinyan as a looming national autocrat. The reference to "new regional conditions" has raised suspicions of external pressures, with some experts speculating that Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Recep Tayyip Erdogan are influencing Pashinyan to expunge any mention of Karabakh from national legislation.

Certain voices in Yerevan contend that the leaders of Turkic nations are pressing Pashinyan to erase all references to Karabakh, a move deemed essential for the completeness of Pashinyan's recent declaration recognizing Azerbaijan's territorial integrity over a significant area. This, however, clashes with Armenia's constitutional position, as the current constitution does not explicitly mention Karabakh.

The intricacy lies in the first sentence of the Armenian Constitution, which refers to the Declaration of Independence. This foundational document derives Armenia's independence from the joint Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR and the National Council of Nagorno-Karabakh in 1989, proclaiming the reunification of the Armenian SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh.

Without a constitutional revision, Armenia remains entangled in a precarious situation. Any national law, as well as the interstate Azerbaijani-Armenian treaty on borders and territories, may be deemed contentious, and future political leaders might contest the legality of Prime Minister Pashinyan's acknowledgment of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity.

The road to a peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia appears fraught with challenges unless a new constitution, stripped of its historical baggage and aggressive rhetoric, is adopted. Armenia is at a crossroads, and the prospect of peace depends on a willingness to review its constitutional legislation.