It is well-known truth: extremes are alike. For example, “national figures” are confident, better to say, pretend to be confident that the word “gender” translated from international into Armenian means “homosexuality”, and they defend our national identity and the family from horrible consequences of gender. On the other hand, some human rights defenders say that yes, it’s time to register gay marriages.
Both extremes believe, or, I repeat, are imitating that they do believe (because they are not stupid) that the problem really exists, they are artificially flaring it up, they become self-determined with it, and, perhaps, receive grants, too. In fact, this whole debate is a storm in a glass of water. Gays existed during the period of the king Pap, Soviet times, they are even now, the law on equality between men and women has nothing to do with them, and in the coming decades, no one in Armenia will allow gays to come out of the margin of the society.
The same for Shant Harutyunyan’s “manganese crystals-bronze” action. Extreme oppositions say that due to this action, the nation woke up from drowsy, that it was the beginning of national awakening, the so-called petrel of the revolution. In other words, they find that the action was an important political event in our lives, after which the power becomes inevitable.
But, interestingly, the authorities having exactly the opposite interest are also trying to convey seriousness to the action by presenting it as a part of global conspiracy. Pro-government political scientists see in it an “orange revolution” provoked from the West, which is directed against the Customs Union, and personally, Vladimir Putin. Almost like in “The Elusive Avengers”: “My congratulations, gentlemen, oranges are in the city.”
Read also
Of course, neither fanatical oppositions believe that Shant laid the foundation for revolution, nor the authorities are particularly afraid of this revolution. But, to feel better, the former ones need to present the case in the style of ‘Once again and more strike’, but the second ones, if necessary, ‘catch the moment’ for all possible pressures not for preventing never existed revolution, but for providing their own tranquil lives.
Here, it turns out that diametrically different goals pursuing, extreme opposite forces present the state-of-affairs in the same way. In the same distorted level.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
