In some organizations and parties, there is a not-so-nice tradition – when someone quits his job and leaves a political party, the head of the organization or his spokespersons encourage the rest “we are purging, getting rid of untrusted elements; we are becoming ever stronger” etc. I, for one, have never thought like that. When someone wanted to leave Aravot (it is obvious that one cannot keep the same staff for 18 years), I was sorry, because everyone – with his/her merits and demerits – gives a certain nuance to the given work, makes it more interesting and manifold. However, I have noticed that in parties, in particular, they never express such regret, on the contrary, they start to say spiteful things about the person who has left, seek for hidden, unstated reasons, being guided, naturally, by the conspiracy theory.
The news of Davit Shahnazaryan’s withdrawal from the Armenian National Congress will be officially explained by that party (I claim that it is a party after the National Assembly election) in the following manner, “It is Mr. Shahnazaryan’s business, we respect his choice,” but in the mass media that ostensibly don’t express the opinion of the ANC and on Facebook, a conclusion will be drawn for sure that he, opposing the “relationship” between the ANC and the Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP), is playing into the gang rule’s hands. Whereas Mr. Shahnazaryan’s analysis made public by Radio Liberty, deserves at least some attention. The main idea, as far as I understand, is the following – the super-pragmatic approach, according to which toppling down the current government, the change of power, is such an ultimate goal that it doesn’t matter at all who will implement that and who will come to power after that power change, is unreasonable. What internal and external policies were pursued in Armenia in years 1998-2008, when the force that is supposedly going to make that change of power now was in power, what values it is guided by cannot help but matter. Since there has been a split in the government and a palace coup once in Armenia, we are experienced in that to some extent. In the first half of the 1990s, a part of the oppositionists, which were just filled with hatred toward the first president, were very happy, but those who wanted system change, realized that even if there was such a thing, it would be only in the negative direction.
Because in 1998, not the best, not the intellectual, but the forceful part of the previous government structure came to power. So, the Pan-Armenian National Movement (PANM) gang rule was replaced by the Yerkrapah and then the Republican gang rule.
Mr. Shahnazaryan’s analysis has evoked such memories for me. No matter how much they say that his – before him, Aram Zaven Sargsyan’s, Alexander Arzumanyan’s and Karapet Rubinyan’s – concerns are inadequate, it cannot be that these respected and reputed people are guided by chimeras. One just should have found a grain of rationality in what they said. However, almost all of our parties, including the ANC, are used to uniformity – what the “boss” decides is brilliant and cannot be disputed. It is easier to manage in that manner. However, it is hard to struggle for democracy like that.
Read also
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
