There are two types of opposition: a/ who knows what it wants, and b/ who knows what it does not want. If you’re saying that you do not want to hear anything, except for the extraordinary election, then you really do not know what you want. Extraordinary elections are not a bad thing. Let them be even every year (the journalists, by the way, will benefit from it). Simply in the second case, you’re restricting your ideas and removing from any political or social agenda.
“I am against the government program, because wrong, unacceptable, and unrealistic things are written there,” this is one approach. “I am against the government program, because you are all shams and criminals”, this is another approach, which I personally would conclude that a person saying such thing is simply lazy to read the program, and for this very reason he has found the easiest way to avoid discussing it.
The same happened in Astana. Should Serzh Sargsyan react to Nazarbayev’s speech? It seems to me, yes. How? Was he supposed to turn the table upside down, stood up and said, “Let you and your Eurasian Union…?” It’s also a way, but apparently not so effective. More rational way was shown by the experts, the opposition (in the first sense, opposition) political figure Alexander Arzumanyan and the expert for international law Ara Papyan. “Our esteemed colleague Aliyev, willy-nilly, is in delusion. The UN is not a state-borders recognizing institution, moreover, the World Trade Organization. If the topic is interesting, we are ready to provide you with an appropriate certificate.” Here’s how it is proposed for the President of Armenia to answer his Kazakh counterpart. But to suggest nothing, just cursing and shouting again that it’s a good reason for demanding Serzh Sargsyan’s resignation, such behavior seems bringing harm not to the president, but the claimants.
In short, the opposition activities, in my perception, are the combination of criticism and suggestions. With regard to criticism and the form of suggestion, the ex-presidents, perhaps, should be some exception. Given their special status and the role, they should first voice their criticism and suggestions in a “closed regime”. In that sense, the Prime Minister’s and the President’s last week meeting is very welcomed. If the first or the second presidents have some considerations, let’s say, about the economy or foreign policy, then it is advisable that they express their concerns to acting responsible persons and only then, in case of taking these advice, to their websites. This is how I view the state approach.
Read also
… Recently, it has been so hot. It seems to me that this is a sufficient substantiation to demand the president’s resignation.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
