The hidden threat of the construction site

Investments, economic growth, prosperity… Do you know what’s the main condition for the occurrence of these three things – property right; more accurately, the right of the immunity of property right.

There can be no stability and development in any society, where its members cannot be confident that no one can make them refuse their property right. Moreover, no one has the right to direct or compel them how to use their property right. If there is no such confident then everything else is pointless because these factors play a significant role in any society. For example, the former Prime Minister of Armenia Hrant Bagratyan would often refer to the property right by pointing out that the war was won because people have become formal owners of their property. People had a lot to use because they were fighting not only for the sake of the fatherland but also for their property. Perhaps this sounds too pragmatic but the role of the private interest should not be underestimated. Indeed, this is no news. In our country we also realize the necessity of protection of property right and it was stipulated by the constitution. According to article 31 of constitution everyone has he right to own, possess and direct his/her property. So if this right is not implemented in our country we are condemned to regress and deceleration.

Despite the existence of this clause in the constitution the matter of property has always been dubious in our country. People have always been alienated and evicted from their homes under the reasoning of state interest (e.g. Buzand street and elsewhere). Insufficient trust to the right of property has always slackened foreign investments as well. They wanted to be sure that their businesses are protected by the law and not by the approval of a high-rank official. This is no surprise because for years the state has been violated by the property right of its citizens on behalf of rich businessmen and private interests. Whatever is happening on Komitas 5 and other construction sites on these days is a part of the chain but from the other side.

This time the property right of a large business owner is being violated. And this is no less dangerous. Thus, someone (in this particular case the identity is not important) has attained land at the mentioned address and wishes to conduct construction as ratified in his contract. The person has not only received license but also city permission to conduct construction. This means he can demand from the state guarantee the implementation of his rights. He doesn’t have to get nervous or worry about the complaints of citizens. Even at this stage his property right is infringed irrespective of the continuity of construction. On the other hand, the protesters are also referring to article 31 of the constitution. It also reads that the implementation of the property right shouldn’t conflict with the surroundings.

The residents of Komitas 5 are saying that their rights are violated because they are going to be deprived of sunlight and that their buildings are being damaged because of the nearby construction. So what should be done? If the state gives in to the demands of citizens the rights of the owner will be violated. Up until yesterday some people didn’t rule out that the city will make the owner at least temporarily cease the construction in light of the broadening complaints.

We have had such prerequisites before. It means that the state often sacrifices businessmen in order to have a good reputation in the eyes of its citizens. In fact it means that the state cheats the large businesses. But the state doesn’t have the right to either cheat businessmen or average citizens. Besides, as Raffi Hovhannisian would say by backing off the government agrees it was mistaken. And if the government till the end supports the property right of the constructor and the license which it had issued to the latter, the matter still won’t be solved. First, the tension will continue and secondly, it will have a negative impact on the behavior of major entrepreneurs.

Who would ever want to invest money in Armenia knowing that their property right is not protected by the state and at any time their activity might turn into public turmoil. In a ward, by the government perspective, neither surrender nor too much pressure is options.

That is the reason why the mayor of Yerevan Taron Margaryan decided to choose the golden middle. He yesterday announced that the construction of the building fully conforms to the set standards and permissions.

“I would like to mention that seven months back I received the residents of Komitas 5, listened to their complaints and it was decided to construct a 7-story building instead of the planned 14.” But the compromise seems belated because new questions are risen. For example, if it was expedient to construct a 7-story building why did the city give a construction license for a 14-story building? Who should be accountable for wrong decisions of the past? Who should reimburse the constructor?

Of course, as a rule the large businesses do not publicly complain about the state. But these investors will memorize these abstruse circumstances before thinking of other serious investments. The worst thing is that there are numerous such licenses issued by the city council to various constructors.

And the complications become more visible during the construction process. All these circumstances debilitate our country’s credibility and statehood. Regardless of the seriousness of the matter some official say in open sarcasm, “There will always be people to complain about everything. The state just cannot give in to all the complaints in order to avoid chaos.” In fact this is a very weak argument because the chaos has started long ago and it will go on as long as the society doesn’t believe in the rule of law and legitimacy of the elected government. The point of the political/state system is very clear. People elect people to represent their interests in political matters.

The majority trusts the decisions of the authorities elected by them. We have the opposite situation in Armenia because citizens view the government as cheaters and crooks. Do you think the people would protest if the government enjoys the trust of the majority of the society. What would it be like if the people were confident that the government wouldn’t have had the license had it contradicted the demands of the law. Of course, it is not ruled out that protests wouldn’t have taken place. But those wouldn’t expand and the state system wouldn’t panic.

There might have been 100 protesters but there would be no public support. In that case, nobody would blame the police for maintaining the public order even if they had to apply measures of force. Thus, as usual the problem is the lack of total distrust. Moreover, the problem is not only the construction held in Yerevan. We can see protesters in all spheres. Students complain about the increase of tuitions, pensioners complain about late pensions, Nairit employees are complaining about late salaries, former warriors are complaining that their rights are violated by the state. And certain state officials continue making irrelevant jokes without realizing that the problem is not the statements of the opposition but the lack of their legitimacy. There is a realistic hazard to the whole political system.

By Babken Tunyan