Here is why “I am against” movement should be politicized
The funded pension topic seems to become slightly dull in terms of purely information, “gas has slowed down.” The solution, which, I hope, the authorities would apply, is to suspend the component of mandatory of the law. If something does not favored with 80 percent of citizens, regardless of whether the recommended reforms are right or wrong, it must be rejected. Why does the government want to forcedly do something good to the young people? If they do not want, it’s up to them.
More interesting is the relationship between the civil movement and opposition political struggle. Social activists are struggling to solve a specific problem, the oppositions – for the power. (Let’s leave aside for what the “non-governmental forces” are fighting, it is beyond the scope of the topic under discussion). Who uses whom and for what. This question cannot be bypassed.
On the one hand, the youth of “I am against” movement are using the political forces, in particular, their abilities in the National Assembly, the Constitutional Court, and so on. On the other hand, the political forces are using the youth movement to raise the level of discontent with the authorities and to achieve their goals “through the street”. It is a normal mutually beneficial partnership.
Once the “accumulative” issue is resolved in one way or another (it is much desired, I repeat, if it is suspended), we should look for other theme of cooperation that “pleases the people”, for instance, “Eliminate the speedometers and cameras!” I think all the taxi drivers and the citizens, who do not want to drive by law, would be consolidated around this civic initiative.
But, sooner or later there will be a need to “generalize” civic movements under “Down with the regime!” or at least “Down with the government!” slogans, and not all civil activists would be ready for these generalizations. As former President Levon Ter-Petrosyan rightly pointed out in his recent speech, civil movements are either politicized, or faded.
Seeing the practice of “I am against” movement, communicating with their representatives and listen to their speeches in recent rallies, it seems to me that sooner they are politicized, the better. These young people are able to “refresh” the political system. I will argument why. They lack in “traditional” political pragmatism and triviality. One of the evidences is that young people gave “beyond non-government line” Nikol Pashinyan and Jirair Sefilian the opportunity to express themselves in the rally.
The speeches of “I am against” representatives were far more rational and logical than those of the political figures (except for Hrant Bagratyan who presented a professional analysis). The members of “political sector”, including the young, were speaking with the same logic and the same vocabulary, which we had heard in mid 90s with Arshak Sadoyan and Seyran Avagyan, and Artashes Geghamyan in early 2000. In addition, in the present parties, even 20-year-old young people form and compose their views under the influence of “politburos” or perhaps united “politburo”.
“I am against” activists do not have these disadvantages, their approaches, as I have noticed, on the one hand, are freer, on the other hand, more discreet and practical. The government is more afraid of such people rather than of ardent speakers or of those posting slanders in websites and social networks. As it is already said by cited political figure, “he who is retrained wins, he who is self-reliant wins, and not the reckless or the madman.” It’s a pity that not everyone from his party members and the rest of “non-government” follows this advice.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
