Armen Sarkissian resigns, blames Armenian constitution for not giving him enough influence

[NewYorkExpress]

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/23/armenian-president-armen-sarkissian-resigns

Armenian President Armen Sarkissian has announced his resignation, citing the inability of his office to influence policy during times of national crisis.

Sarkissian, president since 2018, was at the centre of a domestic political crisis last year that erupted in the wake of a war between Armenia and its longstanding rival Azerbaijan for control of the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region.


He was involved in a standoff with Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan last year over a number of issues, including the dismissal of the head of the armed forces in the wake of the war and amid protests that brought thousands onto the streets of the Caucasus nation.

“This is not an emotionally-driven decision and it comes from a specific logic,” Sarkissian said on Sunday in a statement on his official website.


“The president does not have the necessary tools to influence the important processes of foreign and domestic policy in difficult times for the people and the country,” he said.

“I hope that eventually the constitutional changes will be implemented and the next president and presidential administration will be able to operate in a more balanced environment,” he added.

[PSOL]

The old machine has been replaced by a new one.

[Storr]

For some context: Before the 2015 Constitutional referendum, Armenia had a semi-Presidential system. The system provided for a strong Presidency, exemplified by Robert Kocharyan's time in power. It was replaced by a parliamentary system which naturally made the President little more than a figurehead as the "guarantor of the Constitution".

[ꙮ]

I have never understood countries that have a "ceremonial" President while vesting all actual power in the Prime Minister. Why even have one?

[The Mikado]

I have never understood countries that have a "ceremonial" President while vesting all actual power in the Prime Minister. Why even have one?

The idea in theory is that the President works the same way as a monarch does in a constitutional monarchy: a ceremonial Head of State who is a symbolic representation of the country itself while the Prime Minister is the Head of Government and is associated with the incumbent government which can always be replaced by another. IN THEORY, what this is supposed to accomplish is that in times of crisis or whatever, the "rally around the flag" moment that could lead to a dangerous centralization of power in the Head of Government instead has a totally castrated safe vessel Head of State you can put your patriotism in.

The problem is this never pans out in practice. At least Constitutional Monarchies have some degree of pomp associated with them. No one has once thought about the President of Germany, let alone rallied behind him(?) in moments of crisis.

[CumbrianLefty]

That may not be the best example tbf, as the German "President" may have little concrete power but they do have a fair amount of prestige and moral influence.

(hence why certain people have been prevented from getting the post in the first place)

[Flyersfan232]

I have never understood countries that have a "ceremonial" President while vesting all actual power in the Prime Minister. Why even have one?

just have a monarchy if h are going to have a ceremonial head of state

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I have never understood countries that have a "ceremonial" President while vesting all actual power in the Prime Minister. Why even have one?

The idea in theory is that the President works the same way as a monarch does in a constitutional monarchy: a ceremonial Head of State who is a symbolic representation of the country itself while the Prime Minister is the Head of Government and is associated with the incumbent government which can always be replaced by another. IN THEORY, what this is supposed to accomplish is that in times of crisis or whatever, the "rally around the flag" moment that could lead to a dangerous centralization of power in the Head of Government instead has a totally castrated safe vessel Head of State you can put your patriotism in.

The problem is this never pans out in practice. At least Constitutional Monarchies have some degree of pomp associated with them. No one has once thought about the President of Germany, let alone rallied behind him(?) in moments of crisis.

This is why I think the best system is as in South Africa, a parliamentary system where the President is elected by the legislature to act as both head of state and government.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Next up, some guy named George blames the Georgian constitution.

[StateBoiler]

I have never understood countries that have a "ceremonial" President while vesting all actual power in the Prime Minister. Why even have one?

The idea in theory is that the President works the same way as a monarch does in a constitutional monarchy: a ceremonial Head of State who is a symbolic representation of the country itself while the Prime Minister is the Head of Government and is associated with the incumbent government which can always be replaced by another. IN THEORY, what this is supposed to accomplish is that in times of crisis or whatever, the "rally around the flag" moment that could lead to a dangerous centralization of power in the Head of Government instead has a totally castrated safe vessel Head of State you can put your patriotism in.

The problem is this never pans out in practice. At least Constitutional Monarchies have some degree of pomp associated with them. No one has once thought about the President of Germany, let alone rallied behind him(?) in moments of crisis.

Another issue is this has created a presidentialization of power into the head of government, who can be replaced on a whim by a couple hundred people. The last time the Brits chose in an election the person inaugurated Prime Minister was David Cameron in 2010. There've been 2 mid-election changes of Prime Ministers in the UK since then and we're about to have a 3rd. In Canada, the Trudeau government has chosen to have Parliament and committees rarely meet for a lot of the post-2019 election timeframe when they entered minority status (you can in part blame Covid, but mostly not).

Always think you can look at situations that occur and figure out what a person thinks about government. Executives are largely washed away due to being unelected royals or their representatives, but when the executive is elected it becomes much harder for the Prime Minister to justify the government's actions in a powers dispute, especially when the president has more democratic legitimacy than the Prime Minister or equivalent that was not elected by anyone outside of his or her district.

Cearbhall O'Dalaigh, right or wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cearbhall_%C3%93_D%C3%A1laigh#President_of_Ireland

[Torrain]

I have never understood countries that have a "ceremonial" President while vesting all actual power in the Prime Minister. Why even have one?

The idea in theory is that the President works the same way as a monarch does in a constitutional monarchy: a ceremonial Head of State who is a symbolic representation of the country itself while the Prime Minister is the Head of Government and is associated with the incumbent government which can always be replaced by another. IN THEORY, what this is supposed to accomplish is that in times of crisis or whatever, the "rally around the flag" moment that could lead to a dangerous centralization of power in the Head of Government instead has a totally castrated safe vessel Head of State you can put your patriotism in.

The problem is this never pans out in practice. At least Constitutional Monarchies have some degree of pomp associated with them. No one has once thought about the President of Germany, let alone rallied behind him(?) in moments of crisis.

Another issue is this has created a presidentialization of power into the head of government, who can be replaced on a whim by a couple hundred people. The last time the Brits chose in an election the person inaugurated Prime Minister was David Cameron in 2010. There've been 2 mid-election changes of Prime Ministers in the UK since then and we're about to have a 3rd. In Canada, the Trudeau government has chosen to have Parliament and committees rarely meet for a lot of the post-2019 election timeframe when they entered minority status (you can in part blame Covid, but mostly not).

I think that’s a view of the British system that’s lacking some required nuance. Both of Cameron’s successors earned mandates (slim and large respectively), in snap elections. Mid-term PMs are a necessary and respected part of the system. They’ve been responsible for some major figures, including post-war reformers like Harold MacMillan, key wartime leader and democratic reformer David Lloyd George, and the most famous and lauded of British PMs,Winston Churchill himself (who didn’t win a general election as party leader until the 1950s!).

Additionally - the mid-term resignation of a PM is typically facilitated by a collapse in public approval (May), or a loss of political credibility (Cameron, possibly Johnson depending on how the next month goes). In each of these cases, public opinion suggests a new leader is needed.

The party picks the most competent (typically) minister available, runs the by the party membership, and things go back to normal. And in all by the most dramatic cases, they’ll be fighting a general election within a year or two anyway - typically seeking a mandate of their own.

[CumbrianLefty]

Yes the previous take was over-simplistic, but the point about the increased "presidentialisation" of our system surely carries some weight. And if you think the present crisis isn't just about the person at the top (however egregiously they have failed) but rather the Conservative Party itself, then the possibility of presenting themselves as a completely new thing *again* when Johnson goes is hardly a cheering one (I think they will find it more difficult to do that next time, but that's by the by really)