The Citizen’s Decision Party had urged the speaker of parliament to consider depriving the leader of Prosperous Armenia Party Gagik Tsarukyan of depriving Tsarukyan of mandate. According to the justification, there are doubts that Gagik Tsarukyan is an entrepreneur which is prohibited for members of parliament.
The speaker urged Gagik Tsarukyan to give explanations. Tsarukyan provided explanations, denying that he is an entrepreneur but according to Citizen’s Decision Party, these explanations sound like a confession rather.
Every single person in Armenia knows that Gagik Tsarukyan is an entrepreneur, even though he claims that his assets are managed by a concessionaire. The problem is the origin of the property which supposes that Tsarukyan should deal with it personally otherwise serious problems would occur. Such is the logic of the former system which is based on illegitimate quotas and internal arrangements.
Gagik Tsarukyan and his party are the inertia of the old style, the parliamentary group was set up for the purpose of serving the personal and business interests of Tsarukyan. Even though the members of this parliamentary group are trying to put on a political image and decorate their existence with content, they fail because the purpose is too specific.
During the revolution and in the post-revolution period PAP changed camps several times, which indicates the apolitical nature of this party. Later a memorandum was signed between Nikol Pashinyan and Tsarukyan, and Nikol Pashinyan announced that Tsarukyan is no longer an entrepreneur but a proprietor. Later Tsarukyan referred to the prime minister whenever he answered questions about his entrepreneurship.
Why did Nikol Pashinyan go for agreements with Tsarukyan? Was the purpose to follow the “constitutional path” in leading the processes or an insufficient understanding of the situation? On the other hand, why would Tsarukyan need a mandate after these agreements when he could have a parliamentary group in parliament? Had he not got guarantees on his own property?
Opinions and comments are different but the main issue seems to be the lack of systemic changes when the issue of property would be resolved with clearly written regulations, defining clear indicators preventing merge of business and governance, which would be a strong guarantee for entrepreneurs. Their absence has led to the issue which revolutionary Armenia faces in the economic, legal and other spheres and not only when it comes to Tsarukyan.
In its turn, after these regulations there would be clarity on whether the major proprietors and their businesses could survive when law is enforced property and they lose the former illegitimate quotas and privileges. What would be left of them?