ARF MP Artsvik Minasyan, in the conversation with “Aravot”, considered acceptable the style, with which the president at an NGO sessions is trying to offer solutions to political problems and raise political views, referring to the President Serzh Sargsyan’s Q&A at the VHD Union session. MP’s reasoning is that it is contrary to the NGOs law, which does not entitle given organization to get involved in politics. Contradicting observations of the opposition partner, the NA Deputy Speaker Hermine Naghdalyan told us today, “To be honest, I do not know any reason that could restrict president’s right and ability to communicate with people, to speak directly, to enter into Q&A, and answer people’s questions straightforward, honestly, and open. I do not know why the format of NGO’s session or the Congress does not comply with the right of the President of the Republic or another politician to answer the questions raised by people when there is a need for it. I think no one can or should put restrictions over the president’s jurisdiction or liabilities, particularly, over the possibilities to communicate with president’s staff, even if it is not available for this person. And whether or not this style is acceptable for someone, I think it’s up to him. I would say just on the contrary, I find that NGOs are the very format, the very tribune to participate in community activities and people’s public life, where there is a greater chance and need for the politicians, managers, and leaders to participate more, to see people more often, face to face, so that the latter could be able to get the answers to their concerned questions at first hand, like it happened at VHD Union Congress. It would be good that our politicians and leaders are more often seen in these platforms and have the courage and willingness to answer people’s questions straightforward.” Turning to the subject of introducing mandatory funded pension system, Artsvik Minasyan, in one of his interviews, also expressed concern that with the introduction of this system, current government imposes on all future governments, and says to people, do not rely on the state. Dispersing all similar possible concerns, our interlocutor added, “This system operates in many countries of the world, it is considered to be effective in all these countries, more efficient than the distribution system, and such criticism has not been made ever and no charges are voiced that the state disclaims of its responsibility with the mode of “people, do not rely on me”, and obligates future governments.
Moreover, this criticism is largely irrelevant, because the government does not only miss to say, do not reply on me, moreover, it says, I will double your deposited amount, I will participate with the size of the amount that you deposit and will add to it in the process of years, until you get to your retirement age. In short, the government does not put the burden only on people, on the contrary, participates in building their future well-being on the principle of peer-to-peer. Although I have a respect to the ARF’s position, because in the whole course of discussions of the law, they have displayed their opposition. Unlike our other parliamentary partners, they, both Artsvik Minasyan, Ara Nranyan, and Vahan Hovhannisyan, had voiced their concerns about some clauses of the law, nevertheless, I cannot miss to remind that ARF Ministers actively participated and contributed to the system-building and lengthy process of global development. If it was so bad, why did they do it?” The President of Armenia stated at the VHD Union Congress that although 80 percent of the public is displeased, however, the system will function, which was viewed by some, including Artsvik Minasyan, as ignoring the will of your own people. Hermine Naghdalyan has a different approach. “Being displeased and having an opposite opinion are different things. Today, people have many things to complain about, but is does not mean that if the time comes to vote or national referendum, people will come and vote against. They are not the same things, and I will once again bring the example of CIVL, when we were introducing it, the 80 and 100 percent were displeased since additional payment was to be made, and now, look, what a good operating system and how good it was that the reform was carried out.”
Nelly Grigoryan
