Some historians claim that at the Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam conferences, when the order of the world after World War II was determined, Winston Churchill was taking the leader of the opposition Labor Party Clement Attlee with him. British Prime Minister found that having thousand and one problems with the opposition, he, however, must keep the representative of the opposing political power informed about the process of so such important negotiations. The problem here is definite, he knew that sooner or later the government will be handed over to his opponents (which took place in 1945, July 5), and the latter not only have the right but also are obligated to know “the history of the issue”.
Since no one in Armenia is reluctant to hand anything to anybody, people sitting in the ruling chairs view this “hand over” as their personal tragedy, this culture is not yet formed among us. But since 2011, when the government and the opposition made a hesitant attempt for dialogue, some new shades in this relationship, however, were observed. Once hostility was replaced by a desire to discuss the issues. True, often the tone of these discussions is not so pleasant for the ear, nevertheless, it’s better than the aspiration to destroy each other.
The domain of collaboration between the government and the opposition is the Parliament. Here, there is a certain distortion in our understanding. Some people think that collaboration implies voting “in favor of” this or that bill of the government, or take the responsibility for this or that government decision. When the opposition MP says that he will vote against this bill, because the latter’s this or that clause is contrary to his beliefs, it is also collaboration, a joint work making the bill better.
In this respect, for example, “Pre-parliament” as a non-systemic opposition is not collaborating with the government. And those who are in the Parliament, even if they curse the government officials by the last words, are still collaborating. One may treat Nichole Pashinyan differently, his vocabulary and rhetorical tricks, but his activities do not come out of the classical political circles. Especially when he was correct in his last speech in terms of the content: at least half of the government officials are extremely successful businessmen, and to expect that they will fight against shadow, is unrealistic.
The Opposition must control the Executive power. But giving the opposition controlling positions seems illogical to me. Suppose I am an opponent of the government, I naturally wish the level of people’s dissatisfaction rise, and thus collapse the regime. Do you imagine how I will work, for example, in the position of the President of the Chamber of Control?
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
