High-ranking party representatives (it doesn’t matter whether they are government or opposition supporters) have a very interesting habit – to pretend that they are aware of any kind of their inner- and inter-party intrigues, and being aware of that divine truth makes them so much more important than ordinary mortals that they can afford not to notice the
latter. And if they notice, it is such a big favor, which they can never repay. So when journalists ask them what they were negotiating on with members of other parties, they immediately strut like a turkey-cock and mysteriously utter, “It is a secret.” Certainly, we, journalists, are supposed to ask such questions, so to say, ex officio. However, I want to inform those who pin certain hopes on those “political consultations” that nothing is decided during such “official” negotiations. Politics doesn’t reflect the strutted party members’ ambitions of “knowing secrets,” but rather the real allocation of forces. By saying “forces,” I mean not only money, law-enforcing and administrative leverage, where no one can compete with the government, but also reputation, public support, support of external forces, which parties have to a sufficient or insufficient extent. And these meetings, discussions etc. perhaps help a bit understand what the allocation of forces is like, but the important thing here is not the “official” agenda, but perhaps the tone, in which the “high-level sides” express their opinions on issues that have almost nothing to do with the real political agenda. That tone can be noticed in the traditional formulas of propagators. For example, “The regime is panicking,” “The administration is terrified of the prospect of having a joint candidate.” In reality, even those who have a very little experience in politics know quite well that such issues are not discussed at the level of secondary or tertiary figures. However, using such propaganda “exclamation-slogans,” the sides not only embolden their activists, but also look for rivals and possible allies.
Levon Ter-Petrossian shows in a very convincing manner in the foreword of the first volume of his book The Crusaders and Armenians that the “officially” announced aims of the crusaders were only a very small part of those underlying political and economic reasons, for which the crusades were really organized. The same logic applies here; why should I believe that the parliamentary system or “getting rid of the regime” is on the agenda of today’s political forces?
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
