The
member of NDP administration Vardan Poghosian says according to which that policy
was led to defeat.-Whether the decision of "Justice" on moving
the NDP leader Shavarsh Kocharian from the OSCE membership was a matter of protocol
or whether it was a political retribution.- The "Justice" group
had a right to change x instead of y and there is no problem in case of regulations.
But this is the juridical side of the problem. But the political side is very
clear, it is a political retribution the reason of which is that the NDU position
was different in the whole process of the Constitutional amendments from the positions
of other parties of "Justice".- Arshak Sadoyan has considered that
Shavarsh Kocharian didn’t refuse voluntarily from being the member of PACE delegation
as his obligations were so much that he had to pretend as if the group has voted
in that way". In your opinion, what is the reason that your former partian
is more intolerant?- Our party don’t take seriously Arshak Sadoyan’s any declaration.
As he likes to repeat "loose tongue" expression and it refers to Sadoyan.
The reason of his intolerance is that that now he can show that there are other
parties besides him and politicians who deviate from the main line of "Justice".
But if "Justice" was consistent it should be engaged in Arshak Sadoyan
who broke the boycott in the process of constitutional amendments and produced
an amusing project which dishonoured the Armenian opposition towards the whole
CE. And now there is a pleasant moment for him to gloat over the misfortunes of
other partner. – You have predicted on 3 of November in "Mirror"
club that the opposition will loose and "no revolution will happen in the
result of the referendum". Has the NDP’s prediction been realized or you
must wait for the formation of "Armenia" committee and the joint opposition
will achieve the promissed project?- First of all there isn’t any joint opposition.
I think "17+8" bloc doesn’t have any future and will be destroyed very
quickly. It is known that there are great discrepancies between that format and
the PPA. For predicting that there won’t be any revolution you simply must have
a healthy mind. The NDU discrepancy with the other parties of "Justice"
was just it that our opponents thought that people would revolt. But we saw that
revolt didn’t happen. And it couldn’t as if the "Justice" chose such
a strategy it should explain to the people first what is written in the current
Constitution, what the authority proposes and what it proposes instead of it.
In this case it would be clear for the people that the matter of constitutional
amendments was decisive for democratic development of the country. Unfortunately
"Justice" didn’t take any step on this direction. Only half-steps were
taken round the propaganda of the referendum but the time had already been lost.
The excellent opportunity of improving the project of constitutional amendments
had already been lost.- If the defeat of the opposition in 2003-2004 was explained
by subjective reasons in particularly by Stepan Demirchian’s undecisiveness then
was what happened this time the result of objective processes?- I think it
is the result of subjective processes. The "Justice" didn’t carry out
any consistent policy. It kept boycotting in the NA which had already become ununderstandable,
no alternative was suggested instead of it and only declarations were being sounded
as if we’d win at any cost. Then they tried to use the referendum as an occasion
for realizing changeover of political powers.- But "Republic" and
those parties of "Justice" which were included in "18+8" format
were calling for the revolution.- But the whole "Justice" bloc submitted
to Aram Zaveni Sargsian’s political line. And the defeat of Justice was just connected
with the circumstance that no serious discussion was organized round this issue.
Everybody was thinking wrongly that the referendum must be used as a way to find
out relations with the authority.Anna Israelian