The formulation by the opposition, “the constitutional amendments are initiated for reproducing the government,” rises certain skepticism in me. Not because I believe in “lofty goals” of the government, but because I am sure that the government will be reproduced in all cases. As long as our, the citizens’ thinking is not changed, and it is a long-run process.
In early 1998, “well-known forces” demanded the president’s resignation. What? Did these forces represent the opposition? What? Didn’t oligarchy cope with the “stance” of the new president within 5 minutes? It was agreed in the top that one will go and the other will come. Didn’t it turn out that the government is reproduced?
It was our only “regime change” in 23 years. With regard to other, “parliamentary” or “presidential elections” called events, since 1995, I think no one doubts that it was a reproduction of the government.
Now we getting close to the next stage of reproduction. It may take place in 2015, 2016 and more likely in 2017 and 2018. The reproduction mechanism again will be the agreement reached in the top. Here, it should be agreed that the parliamentary system would create conditions that are more favorable for RPA to make a deal.
Read also
But regardless of what the position of the first face of the country is called, a president or a prime minister, it would be an agreed candidacy from RPA, PAP, Robert Kocharyan, or, let’s say, Armen Sargsyan from London. The name is not essential, what’s important is that in the beginning the candidate will be “approved”, and then the elections will take place as a technical event. This is what is called the “reproduction of the government.” In this game, the rest of the parties, ARF, ANC and “Heritage”, which do not have any serious pretension, are trying to maneuver and maintain their modest place in the Parliament.
This is a “dry” policy. The rest, “Wow, poor people is suffering,” “Wow, emigration” and so on, are its seasonings. Of course, there is nothing bad or bizarre that people having significant impact on the situation agree, or those whose influence is less, sought to ensure their minimum participation. And why should we expect “lofty goals” from anyone?
In fact, like in many other countries in the world, the concept of an “opposition” is also highly relative. Eventually, it is a function that is performed by a certain group of people within some rules of the game. Contextually, Shant Harutyunyan is an opposition in Armenia, who, if we leave his extravagant manifestations aside, suggests other principled solutions to existing problems. Right or wrong, it’s a matter of discussion. Shant does not play with proposed rules. Is it by chance that Shant has no followers in the classical “political arena”?
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
