Thank you for giving me this opportunity today to speak with you.

There is no more current theme today, in Armenia, than constitutional reforms. I¹m pleased to be addressing this theme with this audience today, because it is you students who will be affected by the changes which these amendments propose, and it is you who can become the advocates of these changes.

This campaign is both a political campaign and an educational campaign. It is important that we, the voters, truly understand what these changes mean. This issue ought to be objectively, honestly, openly discussed so that everyone can in fact reach the right conclusion. That¹s what I want to do here today.

I have followed the discussions surrounding the constitutional changes ­ both the discussions in the parliament during the three readings, before this package was passed, and the discussions that have followed ­ in the press, and in various forums.

What is clear is that those opposed to these changes do not have any logical, grounded objections. The most vocal opponents voice objections that are really excuses with no underpinnings. Why these excuses? We can speculate about that. But first let me talk about the excuses themselves.

These excuses fall into two categories: Those which are general and ideological, and those which ostensibly address the content of the reforms, the actual changes.

Among the ideological excuses for opposing the reforms, there are three fundamental and often-repeated accusations: 1. The political environment is not right today for such a serious discussion.
2. Today¹s authorities are not legitimate, therefore they do not have the right to propose constitutional reforms. 3. Today¹s authorities have violated the Constitution, and therefore have no right to discuss constitutional reforms.

All three of these excuses give more importance to the opposition¹s quarrel with the authorities, than the Constitution and its needs. They think their own power struggle is more important than what Armenian society needs to move forward socially, politically, even economically. After all, that is what a Constitution does. In Armenian, the Œsahmanadrutyun¹ does what the word says ­ it identifies the limits, defines the parameters, establishes perspectives on individual rights, society¹s rights and the responsibilities of the state and the government to its people. It defines this most important relationship. In English, the word Constitution means this is the document that defines who we are as a people, what our values are, what constitutes our ideology and our value system. This is what a Constitution is, and to oppose the idea of it, or our opportunity to define it and improve it, means opposing the right of a society to grow, to evolve, to flourish.

So, why should the people be punished as a result of what the authorities may or may not have done? If the authorities were illegitimate, wouldn¹t international organizations have made some statement in that regard? If the political environment is not right today, when will it be right? Who is to say when it¹s right? There will always be political forces, opposition, which will consider the environment not appropriate for something.

Was the environment suitable in 1995, when today¹s Constitution was passed? Imagine if we had fallen victim to similar excuses then and had not adopted this Constitution. What if we didn¹t have a Constitution in 1998 when there was an unexpected change of administration? What kind of chaos would have reigned in 1999, after October 27, had we not had a Constitution? Good or bad, this Constitution has worked for this Republic at this time. Now, we need to modify it in order for it to keep pace with our changing needs.

It is ironic but those in opposition are rejecting the very reforms which will in fact go a long way toward facilitating the improvement of the political climate.

The opposition to the content of the changes is also ill-thought and unreasonable. There are certain myths which are thrown about in order to try to prove that these changes can adversely affect the life and well-being of this country and its people.

Myth 1: the reforms make possible changes in Armenia¹s borders without requiring a referendum.

Myth 2: non-citizens will have limitless opportunity to buy up land.

Myth 3: by removing the obstacle to dual citizenship, Armenia¹s domestic politics will be controlled by those living outside Armenia.

Myth 4: these changes will make the President immune from criminal prosecution, and in addition, he will be able to run again for two more terms.

Each of these truly is a myth.

Regarding our territorial integrity: the proposed change in the Constitution is simply procedural. The requirements remain the same ­ that any changes in borders must be approved by the National Assembly; that is, by the people¹s direct representatives.

Regarding the purchase of land by non-citizens: The Constitution continues to preclude the purchase of land by non-citizens. Even if the obstacle to dual citizenship is removed, land ownership can continue to be defined by legislation that limits the privileges of non-citizens.

Regarding dual citizenship itself: These changes simply propose that the obstacle to dual citizenship be removed from the Constitution and that the status be defined by legislation. It is assumed that such legislation will address the most problematic aspects, including voting rights, military service and tax responsibilities. These rights will not be freely and indiscriminately given away. On the other hand, we will not ignore the majority of Armenians who today are not and cannot become citizens of Armenia. Or worse, must resign from their Armenian citizenship because life forces them to live and work elsewhere.

So, if we do away with the myths, we can spend the remaining days actually exploring the real issues at hand. We can do this with two important considerations in mind:

First, the constitutional referendum must not be seen as a matter of life and death; if the voters says no, it¹s not a fatal blow. No one is going to blame us or punish us for exercising our democratic right to free expression. But we must understand that if we say no, then the country loses out, and we lose a big opportunity to promote our economic and democratic processes. If we say no, it will be years before we have another opportunity to change the Constitution to fit our needs: certainly not for four years at least. In 2007, we have parliamentary elections; in 2008, presidential elections. The new administration ­ whoever that may be ­ will need at least 2 years before they will be able to address such an issue.

And secondly, we must see constitutional reform as a natural thing. A constitution is a living, vibrant document. It evolves with a society and a people, over time. Haven¹t our society and country changed dramatically in these 10 years? It¹s natural that we would want our primary legal document to change with us. It¹s an expected process. There is nothing unusual here. The US constitution has been amended 27 times. The German Constitution adopted in 1949, has been changed 27. The Italian Constitution, passed in 1947, has been modified 11 times. France 13 times. Austria 12 times. Slovakia, which adopted a Constitution in 1992, has already made three changes. Our neighbor Georgia, has already changed theirs five times. In 2002, Azerbaijan made fundamental changes to its constitution.

Thus, a constitution is, must be, a dynamic relevant live guidepost. In our region, we are lagging behind in this process.

For a moment, imagine if our Constitution had provided for Parliament to amend the Constitution, itself, by its own 2/3 majority. Such is the case in many countries, including Georgia and Russia. If that were the law in Armenia, today, we wouldn¹t even be having this argument. The reforms would have already been accepted, passed, adopted, and that would have ensured our country¹s normal development.

Having spent this much time trying to understand the unreasonable, disingenuous objections of the opposition ­ objections which really have nothing to do with the Constitution at all, let¹s look at some of the important changes and their significance.

First, these reforms introduce serious checks and balances among the 3 branches of our government. Parliament receives new powers, at the expense of presidential power over that body, and the Prime Minister, who represents the parliamentary majority, also receives new powers, again at the expense of the powers of the president. As a result of both these changes, Parliament¹s role and power are clearly enhanced. This means that the role of political parties too will grow, and this will make it easier for a genuine political environment to develop. Finally, the balance of powers is made possible since the Constitution broadens and enables the independence of the judiciary ­ the third branch.

Generally, then, this means that if the original constitution defined and developed the rights of the single leader, these changes broaden and enhance the rights and strengths of the institutions, so that the institutions can compensate for whatever this or that individual leader might lack.

Second, the new changes strengthen individual human rights. It brings them more in line with European demands, values, standards. A new concept, a new term is introduced into our constitution for the first time: human dignity is upheld as a basic right. This is an ideal which lies at the base of American, French and other constitutions and human rights documents ­ a man¹s right to live in dignity. With these constitutional changes, Armenian society will be saying that we, too, uphold the value of human dignity.

I can understand that despite these improvements, there will nevertheless be those who would disagree on solid political and ideological grounds and prefer a strong presidential system, or a completely parliamentary system. But, at this time in our history, as we decide how to vote in this referendum that is being watched, there is a bigger picture we must keep in mind. This document must be viewed from a bigger angle: the big picture, the future of the country, deepening democratic processes and economic development, and the need to mobilize our total Armenian potential.

Let's look at the big picture, from three perspectives.

1. Armenia itself
2. Europe
3. Diaspora

1. On the level of the Republic of Armenia, today we find ourselves in a constitutional crisis. The legal-constitutional foundation of this and any country, which is a most important pillar of statehood, on which are built the state and society, that foundation, the Constitution, must be a living, developing, evolving organ, which in order to remain vibrant and relevant must be nurtured in five ways, through five arteries:

1. constitutional reforms themselves
2. constitutional law
3. periodic legal interpretations of constitutional provisions
4. national judicial precedents 5. international judicial precedents

We¹ve had our constitution for 10 years; it has seen no changes. So, that one artery is closed. The constitution we now have does not make any provision for constitutional law, so that second avenue, too, is closed. We don¹t have the opportunities for periodic interpretation since access to the court is limited narrowly in this document. During these 10 years, there have been thousands of government decisions, and only six have reached the court to determine their constitutionality, and therefore to require constitutional interpretation. In the same time period, from 1996 to 2004, the Austrian Constitutional Court has reviewed 2863 decisions; 2340 in Croatia; the European average is over 2000. Even in Russia and Georgia, the frequency there is much higher than ours: 144 in Russia. 102 in Georgia. This is a necessary process which is missing in our current sytem.

Judicial precedents ­ national or international -- don¹t exist. Without a real independent judiciary, there is no reliable or consistent case law. International precedents don¹t exist because no Armenia-relevant issues have been heard in any European court and no decisions reached. So, those two avenues, too, are closed.

Therefore, simply by passing these constitutional reforms, we open the main artery. And more. Those reforms include enough new provisions so that the other avenues too will be opened: Our citizens will be able to take their cases all the way to the constitutional court. An independent judiciary will help create precedents, there will be more frequent interpretation and use of this documents. All of these are important for the development and maturation of our statehood.

At the second, European, level ­

First let¹s affirm that as members of the Council of Europe, we have taken on many commitments. Most have been completed. There are a few which are still outstanding and without constitutional reforms, they simply cannot be completed. We can¹t adopt laws on the judicial system, on judges, on the status of the city of Yerevan, on the ombudsman. We can do none of these without changing the constitution to allow us to make changes in these areas. In other words, we are committed to reforming the constitution, if for no other reason than to make these changes.

But as far as Europe is concerned, the issue is much bigger. We, Armenia, Armenians, voluntarity, all of us together, made the political decision to join the European family. Today, all of Europe, even risking criticism that they are interfering in our domestic matters, are saying aloud that these reforms are good for Armenia and that Armenians must pass these reforms.

In the end, it is finally up to us to go through with this. Of course, we can say no to Europe. And by voting no, we would be doing just that, but what would we gain? We would be limiting the areas of interaction with Europe. We would be countering Europe¹s interests and our own national interests. In this decade and a half of our independence, this is the one of the most important points when Europe¹s interests and ours overlap completely and directly.

And finally, the effect of this vote with regard to the Diaspora. Unfortunately, this too has fallen off our discussion agenda. The Diaspora is an indivisible part of our nation. Our compatriots live outside Armenia not voluntarily, but because history and destiny has taken them there. We have a moral responsibility as a state to rally the Diaspora around Armenia, to make them connected, to make them feel a part of this country. Not just its past, but its present and future too. Not with additional or special rights, but with rights, nevertheless. And responsibilities. We can¹t turn that segment of our nation away and lose the value and benefit they would bring.

Let me be specific. We are not talking about providing Diasporans with citizenship. We are talking about the daily loss of Armenia¹s citizens. Our embassies receive applications daily, from those who are forced to turn in their Armenian citizenship, because for economic, work, or other reasons they are in foreign countries, they must take on foreign citizenship, and our Constitution requires that they therefore resign from Armenian citizenship. We have no choice, we must remove the obstacle to dual citizenship as quickly as possible. That will make it possible for all forces to sit down and develop wise, appropriate, responsible legislation for making that dual citizenship possible without harming our national
interests.

It is these individual, national and international concerns that must drive us to work to pass these constitutional reforms. We need them for our own progress as a state and as a society.

Thank you.