Two people are debating in one place (let’s assume, in my office at “Aravot”). One says, “A white “Niva” car is parked near the building of the Publishing House, the other says, “No, there is a black “Mercedes” car parked there”. The first one suggests, “Let’s go close to the window to see who is right.” The second says, “I do not need to go to the window, because I’m sure that I’m right, and there can be no other way.”
The political debate in Armenia typically proceeds by this level. For example, regarding the constitutional amendments. “I do not want to read and discuss the preliminary draft of the bill because it suggests Serzh Sargsyan to become…” The position and its supposed “power” depends on the imagination of those who have not read and discussed it. Indeed, if I have not read the text “principally”, then I can presume anything. For example, by the new Constitution, the President of the Chess Federation of Armenia will be the most important position, and it is predicted that the country will be governed from the Chess House.
The published text is composed on 52 computer pages, and I do not think that reading it will hurt anyone’s health. Maybe after reading it, the criticism would be more convincing. Otherwise, we, the journalists, are turning to the public or political figures, asking to interpret on this or that clause in the draft, and they say, “do not ask me anything from the human rights, judicial system, the 100-percent proportional, I do not know anything, I am not interested, I am only interested in what position Serzh Sargsyan wants to take.” I think such approach in the Soviet textbooks is called a “subjective idealism”.
Constitutional amendments are truly not the key subject for our society. I think that even the government and the opposition do not particularly care about this issue, simply it is summer and there are no world shocking topics. This topic is interesting to me to the extent that it shows the limitation of our political (and why only political) thinking. Having a biased opinion on any matter, rather to say, a prejudice, we shut up our ears and eyes and begin stamping our feet on the ground, as we do not want to hear or see anything that comes out of our own concocted stereotypes. And it turns out that the idea comes and hits the skull bone and goes back.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
