“This is an unprecedented situation, when an opposition leader that presents itself as dominant dedicates his rally speech to commentaries on the tactics, strategy and approaches of another force,” Hmayak Hovhannisyan, the president of the Union of Political Scientists, explained Levon Ter-Petrossian’s speech at the latest rally in this manner.
In his words, “It was astounding for me, because every political force has its program, its approaches, nonetheless, and it is incomprehensible why Levon Ter-Petrossian dedicated his speech not to assessing the 4-year activities of the ANC, not to what the Congress will do in the short run – these days everyone is particularly interested in the issue whether he will be nominated as a candidate or not – he didn’t explain why the ANC had assumed those 7 offices and had thought possible to be in the National Assembly with 7 seats, but the PAP plans. 37 MPs of the PAP who have been working as that group’s MPs for a month already, they all combined have talked about the objectives, plans and approaches of the PAP during this past month less than Levon Ter-Petrossian in his speech.
The ANC leader doesn’t explain why the ANC as an opposition dominant, as they have designated themselves, hasn’t managed to ensure post-election developments. It offered an opportunity to the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) leadership to state that since there had been no post-election developments and since the people hadn’t appealed through rallies, mass marches, as it happened in the Russian Federation, then it meant that the assessment that the election didn’t correspond to the real allocation of forces was ungrounded. The only post-election development was that Gagik Tsarukyan had the joint stuff closed, at the behest of Serzh Sargsyan.”
According to Mr. Hovhannisyan, Levon Ter-Petrossian must explain why the opposition decided to be in the parliament, offering by that decision an opportunity to Hovik Abrahamyan to explain that the parliament floor was more preferable than the extra-parliamentary developments.
Read also
In the political scientist’s assessment, the OSCE/ODIHR makes a final assessment of the election 1.5 months after the election, in order to follow the post-election developments in the country, “If the opposition cannot or rather doesn’t want to organize mass protests, to spark a wave of post-election rallies, the international organizations say based on it that the election results are absolutely acceptable and shouldn’t be appealed.”
According to Hmayak Hovhannisyan, the first president’s assessment that the situation in Armenia has changed as a result of this election is an unsubstantiated and ungrounded assessment, which has no grounds in terms of political science, “The saddest thing is that nothing has changed in Armenia as a result of the election, the RPA has not been unloaded and retains 50+1% representation in the parliament and retains political monopolies.” In response to our observation that the ANC meant the active deliberations in the National Assembly in the past few days, Hmayak Hovhannisyan said, “Listen, do you think blabber is a change, what are those deliberations, they are just emission of steam, it is a circus, a circus for free. The people wish concrete results, not to watch a circus performance for free, we haven’t achieved any results.”
It turns out that the Congress has disappointed Hmayak Hovhannisyan himself and the very Congress and Levon Ter-Petrossian were the reason that Hmayak Hovhannisyan joined the PAP list, “Let me reveal a secret to you. I, being a man, who stood by the people on March 1, was on the same stage as Levon Ter-Petrossian on the evening of March 1, not being a member of the Congress, think that I am the most active pioneer of the national movement. The Congress has put limits to the national movement, which hasn’t contributed to the strengthening of that movement at all. Therefore, I myself haven’t become a member of the Congress. If the well-known autumn analysis of Levon Ter-Petrossian had not been there, I would have never agreed and being an opposition political thinker with my approaches, wouldn’t have accepted the invitation of the PAP, wouldn’t have agreed to participate in the election with the PAP. And there are many people like me, participants in the national movement, taking into account the emphases of that speech, thought acceptable for them to endorse the PAP.”
Hripsime JEBEJYAN
