One of the results of the Armenian National Congress (ANC) parliamentary group’s appearance in the National Assembly is that this group’s criticism is always opposed by the pro-government wing with the argument “and what about the period when you were in power.” The Republican
Party of Armenia (RPA) MPs mean that a part of their colleagues was offered an opportunity in 1990-1998 to have an impact on the situation to a certain extent. The extent is obviously different – Hrant Bagratyan and Gagik Jhangirhan had many powers, Aram Manukyan’s and Levon Zurabyan’s impact was much more modest. And Stepan Demirchyan, Lyudmila Sargsyan and Nikol Pashinyan have nothing to do with the “former government” at all.
However, the matter is a more essential one. Is it really worth recalling the past and who did what, let’s say, 10, 15 or 20 years ago and who is to blame for what, while discussing every issue? I understand that sometimes one cannot avoid such reminders. E.g., when the same Gagik Jhangiryan appears as a human rights advocate and a proponent of reforming the legal system, the other human rights advocates may doubt his honesty. Although it is theoretically possible that he has repented, has, so to say, believed and changed and now he is absolutely honest.
However, when social, economic, let alone, political problems are at issue, the context, the very situation, in which the country was at the time, is important. That fact seems to be avoided at this week’s debate. The emigration in 1990s and the emigration today differ from each other by the scale, significance and consequences. One shouldn’t palm off a lot of numbers to prove who is worse. Talking about releasing water from Sevan only in terms of cubic meters is also wrong, one should understand why it was done 20 years ago and is done today. Why Khosrov Harutyunyan was dismissed from the office of the Prime Minister is also a very interesting question, but in order to find out, one should restore the whole atmosphere of those years.
Read also
And most importantly, why should one do all that? It seems to me it is not the business of politicians or MPs, but of historians and perhaps political scientists – those historical outpourings will hardly help tackle today’s challenges. But if those discussions are so important for our MPs, I would propose to establish a sub-commission of historians in the parliament, which will broadcast live a debate on the subject “and when you.” It won’t be less popular than the TV series.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
