In US an MP is blamed for crossing the street under red light or swearing (video)
Arpineh Hovhannisyan, NA deputy from the Republican Party of Armenia, Chair of the NA Ad-hoc Committee on Ethics who visited recently the State of Connecticut, USA as part of the tour organized by the USAID Armenia mission shares her findings. In her interview to A1 Plus she mentioned that during her visit to the USA in the capacity of the chair of the NA Ad-hoc Committee on Ethics she understood that the practice of reviewing by the committee on ethics issues involving the observance or non-observance of this or that rule of conduct for parliamentarians actually does not exist there. ‘at the time of our visit they reviewed - in the context of ethics - cases which today are the competence of the Commission of Ethics of High Rank Officials. Issues that fall within the competence of the NA Committee are outside the jurisdiction of their Committee on Ethics. They regard the issue of responsibility in the context of political responsibility. For example, they review a case when a parliament member crosses the street under red light or swears and this kind of behavior is criticized and covered in media’. In her opinion, in institutional terms Armenian legal regulations are similar to the approaches applied in European countries: ‘But within this scope of international cooperation it is important to see the differences which are explained by the mentality and culture of a nation. Over time we also will reach the conclusion that in fact for observing the code of ethics or condemning an ethical behavior, it is not necessary to have in place a committee or any other condemning body’. The deputy does not deny that international cooperation and assistance from various donors are more effective at the level of governments, and that cooperation between parliaments is not regarded as equally important. ‘However, based on our experience and also this format of cooperation, I think that cooperation should also focus on the parliamentary format. Besides, after this visit we have formed our vision for proposing legislative amendments, and in the near future we will also develop a guide’. As to the RA Ad-hoc Committee on Ethics, according to Arpineh Hovhannisyan, it has a constraining, preventative or rule-setting role. As a matter of fact, during her office as the Committee chair only one request was reviewed by the said Committee, and while there were numerous publications in mass media on specific cases associated with this or that behavior of parliament members, no requests were filed with the Committee: ‘In the Armenian reality people have a clear understanding of the concept of responsibility: it should be palpable, more tangible, condemning, either in the form of administrative or financial penalty or criminal-legal punishment. Ethical implications do not seem to be very satisfactory for the other involved party. The fact of making a case public itself is an implication when a behavior is presented in an unfavorable light or it is publicized that a person has infringed this or that rule. Moreover, in any country of the world, especially in Europe, a committee on ethics can do no more that issue its conclusion and publicly express its attitude to a case when a parliamentarian has misbehaved.’
