As my regular readers have probably noticed, I do not like to argue. Because it absolutely does not make sense to me. Can I convince the empire, the Soviet Union, Putin, in short, my freedom loving reader that he approaches his idols with somewhat reservations? Am I able to convince my Europe and the U.S. hopingly fellow citizens that the vast decision-makers majority over “there” does not even know where Armenia is? I am going to waste my time on explaining my position once again and, as a rule, to justify myself under personal charges. However, not everyone like me has a peaceful temperament. People usually want to prove their “rightness” and especially they want their word to be final. Naturally, the representatives of political teams should be endowed with more “passionate” character. The so-called “Coliseum” of their gladiator fights is the National Assembly. It was here that they do not leave any word unanswered, and, as recently expressed by one of “ear-cutting” ministers, it is “acting according to the situation.”
Do you remember, for example, what the MPs Khosrov Harutyunyan and Rubik Hakobyan were arguing? Almost everyone has forgotten it, even though it occurred only three days ago. However, everyone remembers that one of them reiterated а “political daltonism” and the other – “political impotent” phrases. Though the adjective “political” somewhat mitigates the record of this physical defects, anyway, just this very secondary theme becomes dominant.
Or, let’s take the parliament and the government Q&A, which actually is not a Q&A at all rather than a chain of mutual bites. The topic of dialogue between MP Naira Zohrabyan and Armen Ashotyan was the education in terms of pure formality, anyway, they did not touch the topic of education for about eight minutes, instead, they talked about websites, social networks, “fakes”, Obama, the Pope of Rome, night meetings, feudalism and even the U.S. Ambassador John Heffern being a “cheap lobbyist”. Was any educational problem clarified in this debate? Of course, not. They did not pursue such an objective. Each of them probably wanted to convince the audience that its party is a good one, whereas the opposite is not. Did they reach the goal, it’s hard to say? However, I suspect that vast masses of people had followed the dialogue.
Of course, there is nothing bizarre there, this is the logic of political struggle and propaganda. It is somewhat unpleasant when the rest of the team members team begin to protect wrong and reprehensible acts within their own team, as it was done in the case of the Minister of Environment. Thus, the political team seems to authorizing all other members to come up with similar or more indecent expressions.
Read also
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
