Should the National Assembly discuss the issue of electricity price rise or Surik Khachatryan’s son’s subsequent heroic deed? I think, yes, it definitely should discuss. Generated from the experience of long-run coverage of our political life, I can state that the government since the years of the Supreme Soviet did and does interfere in such discussions, saying that “it is the task of law enforcement”, “here, the experts should say their opinion” and so on.
In theory, this is true, in reality, however, these law enforcers and the experts are highly politicized, they are not “independent experts” to make their opinion seem trustworthy to someone. Indeed, parliamentarians are not independent experts too, particularly, the opposition MPs are increasingly interested in presenting any issue as a “disaster”, “horror”, “destruction” and “edge of the abyss.” The government along with its law enforcement agencies and “independent commission” wants to conceal the problems, while the opposition with its “apocalyptic” rhetoric wants to open the problems. This is a part of the very mechanism of “counterbalances and inhibitions”.
The government, in the face of the law enforcement that served for them, claims that everything is fine in Syunik, people are killed, beaten, terrorized, take the eye out without the participation of “historic-philosophical Doctor” Surik Khachatryan and his family. The rest of the citizens, especially the electorates of our parliamentarians believe that the repetition of incidents over 20 years allow to suspect that the “intellectual governor” that has criminal records in the past is somehow related to it. It seems to me that the parliamentarians not only have the right but also the duty to respond to our concern – those who elected them. As to what kind of rhetorical art “luxury”, it is already a matter of taste.
Moreover, it refers to the electricity prices rise. The government, in the face of the “independent commission”, says that the Electric Networks of Armenia is working at a loss, and we – the consumers – are to be blamed as we pay them less. While we – the consumers – believe that the managers of this company, starting with the branch manager, are overly lavish in their lives, as a result, huge debts are accumulated. Again, the parliamentarians have to check our this kind of assumption for the reason that the state, i.e., we – the taxpayers – stood surety for the commercial risks of this company.
Read also
In both cases, it’s not worth silencing the voice of the parliamentarians. In fact, it does not require constitutional amendments. In the “presidential” United States, the Congress has very broad powers and makes its word decisive for such cases.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
