Ruben Hakobyan assures that although he drinks beer, but it is not him
Yesterday Artashes Geghamyan, a member of the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) parliamentary group, in response to our question why he hadn’t participated in the funeral of officer Vahe Avetyan who had died as a result of beating up at Harsnakar, explained that it was not his style to benefit from the tragedy, appear in front of the camera, take a few steps with a mournful face and then go to a diner to drink beer half an hour after that. He didn’t name those who had done that, telling to investigate and find out.
Since Ruben Hakobyan, the Heritage Party parliamentary group, had been among the politicians who had been present at Vahe’s funeral and had appeared in front of the camera, had expressed his condolences with a rather mournful face, yesterday www.aravot.am inquired of him whether he had gone to a diner to drink beer after Vahe’s funeral and whether he had any idea who had played such a theatrical role at the funeral. In Ruben Hakobyan’s words, “I usually drink beer. However, I don’t claim the right to comment on any such statements.” In response to our question whether Geghamyan meant him, Ruben Hakobyan said, “I just don’t know what facts he has or whether there are such or not. If you have quoted some of Geghamyan’s thoughts, I can surely say and state that he doesn’t mean the Heritage Party at all. If he has any facts and says that he means also the Heritage Party, I will respond.”
Read also
During his interview, Artashes Geghamyan also accused political forces that organize protests in regard to Vahe Avetyan’s incident these days, saying that they should have mourned the death of Poghos Poghosyan at the time. Ruben Hakobyan assured that Geghamyan didn’t mean them in this case either, “I think that it doesn’t refer to the Heritage Party at all.”
And Levon Zurabyan, an Armenian National Congress (ANC) coordinator, talking about his position on the Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP), said that there were different levels of opposing, one could oppose fundamentally, one could oppose moderately, but if one didn’t constitute a part of the Cabinet, then he was an opposition. In regard to this, we inquired of Mr. Hakobyan whether this definition that one could be a moderate or a fundamental opposition was acceptable for him, he said, “The following is acceptable for me – one either is or is not an opposition, in terms of political science, it is so too. As far as I know, there are no terms in the dictionary of political science like “constructive opposition” or “too constructive opposition” either. However, if people want to classify, it is their problem. For me, one either is or is not an opposition.”
HRIPSIME JEBEJYAN
