Distinguished National Assembly Speaker,
Dear Members of Parliament.

I am grateful for the positions, inspirational and critical remarks voiced in this hall. I concur with many views expressed during the previous period and today as well. I mean both the critical and supportive remarks. Nevertheless, I will not agree with most of them. For instance, my party colleagues used such words that might be more modest, while there were a few obviously biased, at least unfair statements in the critical remarks, especially considering that the figures were rounded to the detriment of the actual situation in order to justify our poor condition.

Many points are confused and so on. But that is not the most important thing, of course, I will not address them individually, especially as time is the most impartial judge in this debate, and time will show everything. Nevertheless, I will refer to two episodes in my closing remarks.

I shall briefly address criticism in groups. The approach used for the first group of questions is as follows: there were some unresolved or unsettled issues during the Third President’s years, such as promises cited out of context, or inaccurate allegations of inefficiency made with gross violations of methodology and so on. This is done with the intent to blacklist the coalition candidate, namely that “everything is bad, and he cannot do it better.” This is perhaps primitive tactics, but maybe somehow it can be effective in the context of the goal.

In this regard, I will only make one observation. The decade covering the years 2007-2017 is an important and inseparable part of life in our Homeland, all of us, our children and grandchildren. In the meantime, we have faced two major economic crises; we have defied two war situations, serious internal and external challenges threatening our security, but we managed to achieve progress, initiate or implement many reforms. We were able to cope with complex situations on international platforms and look straight in the eyes of our partners.

The past decade is the history of our country and all of us – it is not just Serzh Sargsyan’s story, and one should not blacken it at every cost in a bid to weaken the political opponent.

It is not fair and worth the effort. I am convinced that the amateur’s findings voiced today will still be followed by serious analyses of those years; there will be in-depth surveys and publications. They are sure to happen. And finally, history will give the true rating.

The second question concerns the political context of coalition’s nomination of Prime Minister. It is presented as a third term of governance, it seems rather strange to me: why the third and not the fourth term considering that I used to be Prime Minister before my first term as President.

Different definitions were given, including the contradictions between my former statements and reality. Due to the scarcity of the topics, this group of questions was discussed more than ever, although there was not much to discuss.

I am well aware that with the constitutional reform we changed not only the system of governance, but also the whole philosophy of governance. In the meantime, the perceptions forged over many years cannot change at the same rate.

At least two years later, I am sure all those who follow my words, please make a note of this, I am sure that no one will happen to assume that the prime minister who has been nominated by the parliamentary majority can be seen in the same dimension as the President of the semi-presidential system, or consider today’s transition as a continuation of power or a third term.
It is more than obvious that there is no longer a leader of the executive power in our country, elected by the primary mandate. By virtue of constitutional amendments, there is only one body entrusted with a mandate at the national level - the National Assembly - from which the other branches of power are born.

Still underestimated is the idea that however great the prime minister’s weight in the future government is, it cannot be compared with the role played by the president of the semi-presidential system, simply because the president has never been politically accountable before the National Assembly. I am grateful that this fact was stated in here.

People have not yet fully realized that there is no longer a personified government; instead there is a political government. In my case, this will not be Serzh Sargsyan’s third term, but the first term of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia.

Is it that the difference is not perceived by our critics? I am convinced they do understand it. But the genre has its own rules: if everything goes smoothly, focus on something and repeat it all the time. Perhaps, it is not worth dwelling on those comments voiced for many months now. Everything has been said, everything has already been perceived. As I noted above, it is not just what matters most at this point of time. First of all, it is this first session in itself, when the head of the executive power, the prime minister of a parliamentary country is being elected in Parliament.

It will take us years until such a new process can gain the power of tradition. We all go in tune with the letter and spirit of the Constitution and this is the most important thing right now.

Again, I express my gratitude to all deputies of the political coalition and the political opposition for today’s discussion. I appeal to all of you, including the opposition, to vote for the coalition candidate.

It will, first of all, be the vote of respect for the right of the ruling political power to form a government within its mandate. It will also be a vote for the political rationale, for the sake of reasonable stability, which is the number one precondition for progress.

Thank you.

And I promised to address two episodes. Firstly, I want to address Mr. Aram Sargsyan, even though he is not present at the auditorium because I have a special attitude towards him (for obvious reasons) and say the following: no one was better informed about Vazgen Sargsyan’s plans, emotions, dreams, and let no one speculate thereon.

Secondly, I want to thank twice Mr. Marukyan. First of all, I am grateful that you demonstrated in quite a convincing manner from this podium that the constitutional reform was a necessity. Frankly speaking, it would be hard to prove it using the political lexicon, but you did it by saying thank God, there is no picture here, and it became clear to everyone that we have been freed from the rule of pictures. Instead, we have a political force in power. My second thanks has to do with your “welcome.”

Thank you very much for the “welcome.” If we are to live in a bright, prosperous and fair Armenia; if we are to live under the rule of law, then extinct volcanoes should not be brought back to life in Armenia. Please note that extinct volcanoes will not wake up unless there is somebody to stir them up.

Thank you.