Already defeated in their game, everybody is not against continuing the game
End of fun. The alliances are formed. The march of unprincipled and de-political processes ended. The actions to be attached to any force to an end in itself and hiding under the “roof” of anyone are finally in the past. The anti-ideological “fiery” campaign is ahead. It is already clear for everybody that the “rating” campaign (even between the representatives of the same political force) will be a struggle for money but never a clash of political and ideological viewpoints. The clans and the money will decide the “winners.” It seemed that the principality of the opposition could prevent this process, the appetence to change the atmosphere but …
But what’s the difference? With the exception of the “Yelk”, those who go in and out numerous alliances and considered to be old in the political field, those who have already occupied higher positions a few months ago, those who hold specific political responsibility and those who unsparingly criticized them once, those who pray with anyone collectively show a film about mess and disorder by “feeding” the society with noble ideas, “this should not be continued anymore,” “it’s enough,” “what we do we are doing for you, my dear people”, with this and other ridiculous “justifications”. What were the incidents happened in Armenia in the last few weeks connected with the political process? None. The parties were not busy with anything except for the manhunt to include on the lists and being attached to rich alliances.
Should the “political forces” be engaged in real political activities, those who today are just “saving the nation” with shouting “death to the regime” would not be included in the political struggle but answer some questions. The once functionary should have talked about the reasons for his committed or non-committed actions over the years, and the once opposition should have talked about the reasons for “closing the political page” at the crucial moment. If the representatives of “political forces” were ideological people, they should have expressed their viewpoints about Armenia’s domestic political, social and economic, and democracy, showed the difference between them and the government. But not needed, they “memorized” the most important thing: who to be agile in the word “art”.
The government did not try to be reproduced during their term in power, there were no political prisoners during their term in the office, there was no pressure on the media. Importantly is to raise these issues and everything is fine. The once dissident and persecuted in Soviet years is ready to stand next to the former communist and currently Putin-favorite. Later, one day, in the evening, he announces that his headed party will not participate in the upcoming “regular tomfoolery” in Armenia, the next morning, he attaches to an alliance, incidentally, after the failure of self-attachment to another alliance.
One declares that no one can “put a pressure” on the leader of his alliance, knowing perfectly that not in the far past, the leader had “closed the political page” under “unknown circumstances”, leaving the public in uncertainty. The other one is talking about the existence of political prisoners in the country but a few months ago, during the known events of “Sasna Tsrer” he was in the anti-terrorist group, was on the government side, and definitely was considering the incident an infringement against the state. And generally, the Ohanyan-Raffi-Oskanian alliance, instead of being an ORO would have been more honest to be called “Sasna Tsrer-2” because both Oskanian and Hovannisian have defended the new form of the struggle of “oppositions” by introducing the culture of overthrowing the government into the political field with the help of weapon.
What are the ideological-principle differences of the political forces that have risen for “struggle”, with minor exceptions, for example, regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement, Armenia’s foreign policy, Russia’s past and present policy against Azerbaijan after the April war and based on it making the Armenia-Russian relations truly strategic, Armenia’s accession to the EaEU and other key issues? By and large, they do not have it, everyone knows what they cannot talk about, they must be silent and are silent. Everyone clearly understands that Serzh Sargsyan’s power is not at stake in the upcoming elections in April unless of course there are force-majeure situations with circumstances formed from outside after the elections in April.
Serzh Sargsyan has made his move across the political spectrum: a checkmate and has created a situation where, by and large, everyone is satisfied with the rules of the game drawn by him, everybody already lost their game are not against continuing the game. How the society will behave when making a choice in this anti-political and anti-ideological atmosphere… Usually, it is common to say that every nation has the government and opposition which it deserves. Perhaps, it is so. But let’s not forget what role had and still have the “oppositions” in the formation of this atmosphere with their available “contribution.” 25 years after the independence of Armenia, this is a country of “political forces” and society that has no conscious about the state, statehood, and sovereignty.