We should consider the constitution from two perspectives: the constitution as the text itself, and the constitution as the will of the citizens or the borders. Vladimir Vardanyan, an MP of the ruling majority Civil Contract Faction and chairman of the Standing Committee on State and Legal Affairs of the National Assembly, stated this on Thursday—and referring to the discussions on changing the constitution of Armenia.

"I will not be an exception if I say that in connection with the referendums on the adoption of some constitutions, there have been various comments on how that text was adopted, whether or not it received the vote of the majority of [Armenian] citizens, or in what way it was received. All this has been constantly discussed since 2018, that even if the text remains the same, we must understand: is the will of the citizens really like this?

I want us to consider the constitution as a living document that needs changes during the phase of development of public relations. From this point of view, Armenia is neither the first nor the last [country] to discuss the matter of not only constitutional reforms, but also the text of the new constitution after independence.

In the end, the decision-maker is not me or you, but the constituent who will vote. As of now, there is an idea, and we will try to understand which way we are going," he said.

When asked if he rules out that there will be no reference to the Declaration of Independence of Armenia in the possible new constitution of the country, Vardanyan said. "I say again, I am not the one who refuses, nor are you the one who refuses. If the new text of the [new] constitution is put to a referendum, the constituent will decide what text will be in the constitution."

And to a reporter's remark that the Armenian opposition is sure that changing the constitution is Azerbaijan's demand, the ruling force lawmaker responded as follows: "We discuss this issue more than the Azerbaijani media. No constitution can and should be adopted by pressure because if it is adopted by pressure, we are having problems in connection with sovereignty. The preamble of the document is only provisions that may be necessary under certain conditions to interpret this or that constitutional norm.

In the new constitution, there may be a greater reference to the Declaration of Independence, there may be a smaller reference; there is only an idea, and the one to decide will be the people.

Now making any judgment about the text can only be on an academic, analytical level. I have always been against attempts to change the constitution every week, I am also against attempts to consider the constitution a 'sacred cow;' it is a living document."