“Gyalaji” (pointless talk) between the ANC and the government

Some people perceived it as an epoch-making event and some as a mental house

Yesterday an event took place that was perceived by some as an epoch-making event and by the others as a ridiculous event; after three-year opposition, during which the elections were rigged, 10 people were killed, hundreds of people were arrested and a few dozens were put into prison, the opposition and the government of the country sat around a negotiation table yesterday. Certainly, that was not “the table” initiator of the dialogue the Armenian National Congress imagined it would be. Vis-à-vis  5 Congress members were sitting around the same table not the members of the administrative power as the ANC desired, but the members of parliament from the ruling coalition who, by the way, as opposed to the ANC expectations, had not got the mandate from Serzh Sargsyan. However, since the ANC is very kind and tolerant, therefore, as it stated the day before, “considering the offer made by the coalition parties and presuming they have something to tell us (since they took such an initiative)”, it was not against the yesterday meeting, “as a process along with and supporting the main format of the Congress-government negotiations.” Yesterday the mentioned meeting that, by the way, took place behind the closed doors, ended without discussing any serious issues. During a conversation with “Aravot” deputy chairman of the Free Democrats Party, political scientist Anush Sedrakyan said about the start of the dialogue, that this so-called dialogue was just a fiction, was a very amorphous political phenomenon and commenting on it was an ungrateful thing, “since all that takes place so non-transparent, the available information is such a small part of that pyramid” that any comment on that could be unprofessional. Talking about the dialogue as creating a new interior-political culture in Armenia instead, the political scientist said, “When a dialogue is in process in the political field, and such dialogues took place in lots of countries, Poland, Korea, Sweden, they guarantee some level of publicity – not the bios of the delegation members are made public, but the political agenda, point by point, also the shorthand records of the meetings in the scope of the dialogue. If the publicity level of this dialogue was the same, it could be welcomed. However, since we get only general information about that dialogue, one cannot consider it as a new political culture.” In response to our question A. Sedrakyan said that the Armenian society had nothing to do with that dialogue and was out of that process, “In this case, the matter is the new political technology that is not used around the world, but used in Armenia.” Referring to the statement made by the ANC on the eve of the meeting that a meeting in this format is not a real dialogue, but they are ready to maintain the format of the meetings with the coalition parties in the future, we asked, in that case, what is the point in having a meeting in this format and continuing it? “I am not the person who is to find that point. But as a citizen, as a representative of a political force, I can say one thing – maybe the whole process of this dialogue is for some reasons important for both sides, although, both sides, unfortunately, do not voice that, do not say why it is important for them. It is a pity that they do not voice it, but it is their own business. The fact that there is some concern about the format of the dialogue means that in their (the ANC) format they have an exact notion of the sequence of actions, a political vision. However, both sides do not speak of that and do not present it to the public. Anyway, it is noticeable that the objections to the format are more of a formal nature to show that they have some disagreements with the government.”
According to originator of the “3²” initiative of “the Alliance of Online Freedom Fighters” on Facebook, non-party oppositionist Karapet Rubinyan, this dialogue “will make history as a joke.” Why a joke, some people assess it as a new political culture, do they not? “God forbid such cultures, because I do not see any logic in that dialogue”, responded Rubinyan and added that none of the sides having dialogue was honest with the society, to which testified the fact that they had dialogue behind the closed doors, secretly from the society. “Such dialogues have never been in Armenia and I don’t think it contains an element of the political culture. This is a ridiculous phenomenon that I call a mental house among my friends on Facebook. That dialogue has nothing to do with the society, has nothing to do with the real political interests. This is just a ridiculous phenomenon; let us see how it will end”, stated Rubinyan and since he assessed the dialogue with the words “mental house”, therefore, it was hard for him to say what point the members of the ANC saw in having a dialogue in such format, if they do not think it is a dialogue. Nevertheless, there is an impression that, as opposed to the assurance of coordinator and head of the delegation Levon Zurabyan, they are not so against “gyalaji” (pointless talk) among the ANC members.