Tevan Poghosyan on 4+4+4 format: The most important is the outcome

Support A1+!

Armenian lawmaker Tevan Poghosyan has expressed his opinion about negotiations with the opposition and civil society in the 4+4+4 format, where the government, opposition and NGOs will be represented by four delegates. The format was proposed by Levon Zurabyan, the head of the Armenian National Congress (ANC) parliamentary faction.

1. This format makes it possible to represent the concerns of different groups on the draft Electoral Code.
2. It is not important for me who will participate in the meetings. The most important is the outcome, whether we have been able to find the best option that will increase public trust in the electoral system.
3. Dozens of NGOs have elected four representatives, who, I hope, will present the opinion of others. It is also important that the restrictions intended for observers and journalists are not applied to them. I hope that my colleagues will be open and they will perform their functions with dignity. The remaining NGOs can always put forward their proposals for debate through MPs.
4. It is not important who represents the government at the negotiations but as we know the power is not homogeneous, hence it is important that they put different options of different sides on the negotiating table. Openness and the selection of the best option that will be acceptable to everyone will contribute to restoring people’s trust in the elections.
5. In the same way, it is important that the four representatives of the opposition present the opinions of parliamentary and extra-parliamentary opposition forces. Everyone who is confident of his negotiating skills may participate in the talks and provide results. All 131 members of the Armenian Parliament have equal opportunity to present written and oral suggestions irrespective of the fact whether they are included in the format or not. I am sure that we can achieve the desired results even without this format.
6. This proposed format is good one if it works but if it fails to achieve the desired result, there is no need to fall into despair. There are other options. It is time we got rid of the chains of our mentality. People should be ready to listen to counterarguments to their proposals and take their next step accordingly. If you cannot offer new arguments and propose new versions in a more flexible way, you do not need to blame someone else.