Vardan Harutyunyan, the manager of the Rights and Freedom Center, on internal political problems.
* Compared to the powerful popular tide of protests against the government in 2008, the Armenian opposition is in quite a poor condition, “idling away” a whole electoral period. The opposition was hardly represented in the parliament, the main opposition forces didn’t participate in the presidential election, they made elevated political statements about “taking the Bastille” during the whole mayoral election campaign, as a result, we have what we have. The political forces have “washed their hands” with their post-election statements. What is the reason for the opposition camp’s failure; is the government more cynical or perhaps the oppositionists are less honest with the people?
* The oppositionists are not dishonest. Both in our country and everywhere else, the opposition takes on a task of criticizing the government for its shortcomings. What should the Armenian opposition do that they don’t? This government buys votes, fires people for their political orientation, deprives them of businesses, persecutes and imprisons. I don’t think it is fair to compare the government with the opposition. The opposition won the 2008 presidential election. And it is easy to stand by the winner. People, even government officials, MPs would come to the square. Let us remember February 26 when even the people gathered for Serzh Sargsyan’s rally came and joined the opposition. The popular movement was powerful. The government was not ready to hand over power then, as well as now. And Levon Ter-Petrossian was and still is against solving issues with force. Long before the election, in the period of nominating candidates and during the election campaign, it was already clear that the government was not going to take into account the election results. And the government started to use brute force against the opposition that ruled out using force and intended to act only in accordance with the law, using at first the taxation office and the police, then the internal troops and the army. Unprecedented persecutions began, supporters of the opposition candidate were put into prison, were compelled to hide, leave the country. Well, in the period of these repressions when the opposition was not the “winner” any longer, naturally, people left the square and the opposition’s office and the oppositionists. This is both natural and logical. It is so always and everywhere. It never is otherwise. As a result, the oppositionists weaken and split. Ours were not able and wouldn’t have been able to avoid these logical developments either. If one cannot solve issues in the short pre-election period, one should be ready for a long, hard, and exhausting struggle when the disappointed leave, former supporters curse, and the supporters defect to the opposite camp. When they blame you for all the misfortunes. In this case, achieving big success, winning victories every day becomes difficult or impossible. One is also compelled not to participate in elections when one weighs the gains and the losses from participation. As for the Yerevan City Council election, there is not much to say. In this game called “elections,” politics lost to money. We can assert that the disgraceful phenomenon of buying votes has finally been rooted in our country. From now on, it will be this way, and all those who are preparing for the upcoming elections should take this into account.
* Analyzing the political events that had taken place and were taking place, Sasun Mikayelyan, an active participant in the popular movement, said yesterday: “Levon Ter-Petrossian left the powerful army in the square; he has just started to gather people for three-month maneuvers. And this is the result.” Does he mean the newly-established party? What role can the new party that has less influence than the Armenian National Congress (ANC) Coalition play, in your opinion?
Read also
* In response to your first question, I have already stated that if movements cannot achieve success within a very short period of time, within a few hours or several days, they are compelled to prepare for a long and hard struggle, the future of which is often not visible to many people. While talking about the Armenian National Congress Coalition, one should always remember what ordeals it has gone through since March 1, 2008. The repressions and persecutions that this coalition went through are hard to endure. They endured. The people become excited as quickly as they become disappointed. And this disappointment brings about many minor and major, solvable and insolvable everyday problems. The fall of the movement starts. This is normal. And the one who prepares for a long struggle and realizes the above-mentioned regularity should create such a system that can endure a long struggle. A party is such a system. I am not partisan by nature and will not be. However, in the current situation, I think Ter-Petrossian has found the way of consolidating his supporters and putting up a long struggle. Time will tell what results it will yield. The movement that was in the form of the ANC, a coalition of different parties, had been good, had played an important part, had played a big part in the country’s political life, but such rumblings had already started inside it that it couldn’t last for long. Either it had played its part already or those who wanted to ruin it had achieved success. It was high time that they made new decisions. In the end, instead of criticizing the newly-established political force, one had better wish it good luck.
* By the way, another active participant in the popular movement, Khachatur Sukiasyan, said in an interview given to Radio Liberty yesterday that Tigran Sargsyan was a reformist. Do you agree?
* It is hard to call Tigran Sargsyan “reformist,” but it is an opinion, and the man expressed his opinion. That part of the conversation has continuation. In response to a question why Tigran Sargsyan didn’t reform then, Khachatur Sukiasyan said that he thought the political system was to blame for that, not he. This is a more important idea than calling Tigran Sargsyan “reformist.” Even if T. Sargsyan was a reformist, he wouldn’t be able to reform anything, since the political system of the country wouldn’t allow him to do that. And if a real reformist was appointed to that office instead of Tigran Sargsyan, he, coming across the political system mentioned by Khachatur Sukiasyan, would have to either change and become Tigran Sargsyan or resign. Sukiasyan was the first businessman who, disregarding real dangers and threats, made his choice and stood by the movement that was targeted by the government. I don’t think that he didn’t realize the gravity of the situation. I am sure that he made a considered and thought-out decision. As opposed to many businessmen, considering his public speeches, he has his own conception of the country’s development and economic system, which he clearly expresses without taking into account whether the government will like it or not. I haven’t heard him regret or change the choice he made at the time, for all the persecutions against him, his family members, and their businesses. And half a word or half an idea about Tigran Sargsyan doesn’t mean that Sukiasyan should be “persecuted” in the popular movement.
* A new Cabinet was formed with partial changes among the ministers of the economic cluster. The ruling Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) representatives talk about radical changes every day, which we will feel at first hand. Can the old and new Cabinet make radical changes, using its whole resource?
* Every Cabinet can make radical changes, if it takes on that task with due seriousness. We come across the above-mentioned system again? What task does the president assign to the Prime Minister? If he continues to demand that the Prime Minister ensure that his relatives, businessmen who “bring votes” for him during elections, specimens who organized and participated in the events of March 1, the criminals that “work” for him are above the law, are out of the taxation and customs systems’ sight, if he creates such an atmosphere that even his friends will offshore their financial means, given the risk of losing them, if the country’s economy continues to be divided into friends and enemies, if the country’s political life remains in the same condition with justice submitted to the president’s will, a poor condition of human rights, and an inflated and callous bureaucratic system, there can be no change.
Interviewed NELLY GRIGORYAN
Aravot Daily
