Defendant: Mr Hayrikyan, I have already noted the significant usefulness of your suggestion in my answer to your speech. Indeed, I think it is the ideal of democracy that nations should strive for. It envisages a very strong method of preparing conditions for democracy such as education. I suppose that the ruling elite will do everything to prevent the realization of your proposal but if we imagine an ideal system then your proposal will be accepted. I think that education about this ideal should start from schools where it will be taught each year as a compulsory subject. The ideal should be incorporated and repeated in practice - during the establishment of selective bodies at school, class etc., so that school students leave with clear notions of how an elective machine should work deeply rooted in their conscience and mind and what the meaning of the elective mechanism is. Yes, in this case, when grown-up, this student will struggle against deviations, violations of what they studied when they sees them, they will defend this idea. So I answer to your question positively. Yes, it will have a great meaning.
As for the declaration, you know there is a declaration and all countries approved of it and that democracy is a universal human value. You can duplicate it in the form of a declaration of citizen rights, the right to a democratic vote. But I noted in my speech that no paper, no declaration is not a panacea in itself. You need real conditions, you need a society that will understand it. There is the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Does it work? No. A declaration of democracy will be adopted, but it will only be a declaration. The obligations of people who believe in democracy, in the triumph of democracy, mean that they raise a citizen every day, every hour, and incessantly, who is able to fight for their rights and set an example for others.
The moderator suggests that the audience gather their questions and address them to the Defendant.
Voskan Sargsyan, editor of newspaper "Tesankyun": I was listening very carefully to you, Mr Alizadeh, and I have a question. You said our citizens are not mature enough for a democratic system, the realization of which was suggested by Mr Hayrikyan. I want to know your opinion about the level of democracy in all three countries of the South Caucasus separately. You were speaking about them as a whole but I think there are differences. I would like to know your personal opinion on this question. Thank you.
Michail Aghakhanyan, representative of Armenian union of Georgia "Nor Seround", coordinator of the Tolerance Club: I thank both of you for your great speeches. Mr Zardusht, I have a question. You said that it is necessary to raise future citizens from school and at the same time you think that even if a declaration on voters' rights or something similar is adopted it will remain on paper. Do you not think that if children are prepared for this when they are still in school then when they are grown ups they will be guided by this declaration? Thanks.
Alessandr Avsandjanishvili, independent publisher: My question is purely regional. Of all the three Caucasus countries which one is ready to adopt this system? In which of the three republics is there a favourable climate for it?
Nidjat Samedoglu, newspaper "Zerkalo": I have a question to both the plaintiff and defendant. As I understood from the general debate, the formula suggested by Mr Hayrikyan is meant not only for countries experiencing a vacuum in terms of democracy, but also for countries with firm democratic principles and sets. It seemed to me that the system presented by you can be efficient for establishing a certain public conscience. But at the same time there are peculiarities in the system of political power and the configuration of the state that should not be excluded. Don't you think that it is necessary to figure out the political structure of the power first and then work out a universal model of state configuration?
Defendant: Thank you for your questions. As an answer to the second question I will say yes. In your question there is a statement too. You should strive for a purpose through changing a person. If we bring up the younger generation with a firm belief in democratic ideals, procedures and mechanisms then some time in a few years, maybe decades, we will be able to come to the realization of the democratic mechanism Mr Hayrikyan invented. As for the first question, I think level of democracy in all three republics is the same despite seeming externally different. In the Middle Ages up until the presence of Tsarist Russia in the South Caucasus we were in the same space of Eastern despotism - Osman, Kadjar despotism. I want to ask you a question. Was there democracy in Kadjar Persia, or Iran or the Osman empire? Was there democracy, were there democratic traditions? I think no. Was there democracy after the arrival of Tsarism, Russian Tsarism and until the Bolshevik revolution in Russian Empire? Were there democratic traditions? We can confidently say that at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century some basis of democratic civil society emerged in the South Caucasus: parties, charitable organizations, art groups or whatever. That it there was a start to democratic development in a bourgeois way. But then Bolsheviks came, they nipped it, cut it in the next stage in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. Could there be democracy then? What democratic traditions could there be? The chaiman of kolkhoz in the village said something - law, secretary of the district committee in the district said something - law, the first secretary in the republic said something - law. One party adopted a decision - law. What democracy? What democratic traditions do we have? We say we are ancient, cultural nations. There is a musical culture, literary culture, a culture of cuisine, but there is no democratic culture. After perestroika started the nations who didn't have democratic traditions thought to themselves that they could build democracy and they started building this democracy and got what they built. In addition to that conflict emerged, imposed on us falsely, but skilfully. And under the conditions of, I would say, an orgy of nationalism and xenophobia, war, the triumph of battle commanders - what democracy can there be in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in this situation? Yes, Georgia now has an authoritarian system, a police government which states that it is democratic because it declared a policy of integration with the European Union and NATO, and based on this hung out European flags. It means they have democracy. But I observe Georgia and often say - social-Darwinism rules there. Survival for those who survive. Armenia is a corrupt country which widely and frequently uses violence against its citizens. A very poor population. In Azerbaijan it is the same - a very wealthy elite and a very poor population. No respect for the Constitution. Neither in Armenia or Azerbaijan. We are symmetrically opposite societies. You do not like Turks, we do not like Armenians. There is a common disease - xenophobia - and this is also implanted by our societies. That is why I think that maybe in the Caucasus we have to work hard to understand what democracy is and to start fighting genuinely for democracy. There are such people, such citizens. Such circles, societies, civil societies. They are in the minority, but they need to be supported. More and more people should be involved in them. Examples should be set that yes, it is possible. We can fight for democracy, we can fight for human rights, and we can fight for the genuine national interest. Thanks.
Plaintiff: I want to say that even if universally accepted documents do not play a constant role they still serve as guide and have a favourable impact on our everyday life and perspectives. Which of the three Caucasus republics do I think is not that more worthwhile... but more ready to accept this idea? I want to start bt saying that Armenia and Azerbaijan are in a obvious and drawn-out conflict and I always thought we would be able to find an effective method of mutual understanding only when our nations will have their own government truly representing them. For this we and the Azeris would need democracy. We would need to know that Serj Sargsyan is a truly elected representative, and so is Ilham Aliyev, and when they meet, that they do it on behalf of the people. The same goes for members of parliament. But I thought that Georgia is more ready for it. This is why I emailed documents and then through counsels sent documents to Michail Saakashvili. But I was apparently mistaken. None of these republics is ready. There was the very weird answer that the Armenian and Georgian authorities cooperate not only on a state level but also on personal level. This is why the Georgian government would take some proposal from Armenia if the Armenian government gave positive feedback to it or if someone passed me a sophisticated comment. As for the second question, I thank you for this. It will help me say more about this formula. I have been working on it for 30 years and I have considered most of the points impossible. For example, a 100 % representative body is something impossible I think. In one of my articles I unfortunately wrote that the idea of a 100% representative body is unfortunately utopian. But then I found this mechanism and two years later I wrote that sadly this formula is applicable only to unitary countries. I said that this ideal system of democracy is not applicable to federal countries and then I found a way and explained it. You were talking about such an important detail as a universal model of a democratic state. Today I focused my speech on parliamentary systems. But this formula displays an attitude to country-wide democratic systems. And what does this mean? I do not suggest clear borders and clear construction. But this formula is for those who want to have 100% democracy. When American specialists made their calculations according to this formula, the results turned out to be that the level of democracy in the USA was 70%, in Argentina for some reason 75 %, and in Armenia 12%. It is important that anyone can calculate level of democracy according to this formula in their country and as a result you will know you have a lower level of democracy than in Argentina, for example, and the reason for that is that you have an executive body not elected by people, but appointed by parliament. If you want a real democracy then automatically you will be thinking about an executive body taking the people as its source of power. For example, let's take the coefficient H. It shows how frequently the executive body is elected. In the USA it is every four years and makes 0.9. If elections are held every three years, then it makes 1 which means close to a 100% democracy. Or, let's take the judicial system as an example. It is the J coefficient. If it is formed by people, i.e. there is a second level or panel of jury in the court- then it makes 1. Let's name local elections L. If local elections are held every three years then the coefficient equals 1. Every four years the coefficient is 0.8. Every two years the coefficient is 1.2. Thus, the formula smoothly, invisibly, hints the way to a perfect state system. Only one extract of coefficient R/V*F has to do with the parliamentary system. The rest has to do with the state system. This is a standard formula. It may not be the best formula, but it is a standard formula for everyone. You can add the coefficient U here which will stand for a second tier of the parliament like the French Senate or the House of Lords. It is important that this formula is standard for all so political scientists and specialists on constitutional law can understand why the level of democracy is lower in their countries and what should be done to raise the level of democracy and even achieve a 100% or higher level of democracy. It sounds absurd, but it is possible. I did not take courage, but I know exactly that the ideal state is one with no head of state. The constitution is the head of state. When I was leading constitutional reforms in Armenia I had to delve deeply in all systems while having many qualified assistants. I know exactly now that a person appointed as a head of state cannot be a guarantor. A mortal who will die tomorrow cannot be a guarantor. For example, a president is a guarantor of state according to the Armenian constitution. A person who was yelled at by two other people and ran into the bushes now wants to be back again. He turns out to be my guarantor, the guarantor of my independence and Constitution. (Remark from the audience: not two, but three). Thank you for your questions.
The moderator gives the last word to the defendant and plaintiff.