Vardan Harutyunyan about Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s speech at the rally of parliamentary trio
– The October 10 rally expectations by some analyses failed. Given the fact that during the whole summer, speaking about hot summer, the rally should have been more powerful. What is your impression particularly from this rally?
– The rallies of October 10 and this one were impressive in terms of the crowd. There can be no second opinion here. It’s another thing comparing it with the rallies organized by the Congress prior to this; there was a feeling of a lack of energy and sensitivity. This, in my opinion, is the only disadvantage of this rally. On the other hand, if the previous rallies with full of sensitivity and energy have led and produced to this kind of rallies, let’s hope that these ones with their less sensitivity, but pragmatism, will lead to the desired result. It would be naïve to hope that one or two rallies will solve all the problems facing the society and will result in regime change. In this respect, it is wrong to think that the promised hot autumn is late. The rally fight is a stretched process. Not to be wrong in the assessments, we need to wait. The promised hot autumn just begins, and it is not necessarily to exactly match with the calendar autumn. It is important that success be recorded.
– This rally was also expected. PAP leader Gagik Tsarukyan was to deliver a speech, who eventually was to bring specifications of whether a demand on resignation of current government will be voiced, or not. In any case, the members of parliamentary trio-quartet were waiting for the content of Gagik Tsarukyan’s speech. Were the expectations met? What was the news, which you, as an active citizen, were expecting?
Read also
– The active members of “Prosperous Armenia” political party, in recent times, have clearly and unequivocally stated that they have set the task of regime change. This government should leave; otherwise, the problems encountering the country would not find solution. This has been the most highlighted idea in their public speeches. The only thing left was for the first face of this party to reaffirm it. In his speech, he announced that the change of power is a necessity, and they are ready to take that step. True, his statement about the necessity of changing the power was not so keen and sharp as the statements by Levon Ter-Petrosyan, Raffi Hovhannisyan, or his party members, but as a statement of the first rally, it can be considered satisfactory. The main part of the people who have come to the rally was waiting for just this one: Will the necessity for regime change be pronounced or the word will be replaced by impersonal and nothing saying phrases? In this sense, it can be said that people’s expectations were met.
– Did the first president’s speech contain news for you? How do you assess Ter-Petrosyan’s observations about Armenia’s accession to the EaEU?
– For me, the biggest news in this rally probably was Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s speech. I highly appreciate his speeches, as a rule. Once I wrote that his speeches in the fall of 2007 and several others can be considered weighty samples of the Armenian political thought. But this last speech, unfortunately, was not of Ter-Petrosyan’s. In respect to his respond to the question of accession to the EaEU, the following was clear to me: he says that it is already an established fact, and we need to try getting as many advantages as possible, which we would not get in the results of Serzh Sargsyan’s diplomacy; he says that Armenia has appeared in the Eurasian Union in the result of Serzh Sargsyan’s failed policy; he says that Armenia may have a legitimate government, also be in the membership of the Eurasian Union, and be guided by European values, but for being a winner, Armenia should be represented in the Eurasian Union with a legitimate and people’s trust-enjoying government. These are, as far as I understand, his main ideas. The last one of these ideas is not so convincing. Neither the non-legitimate Putin nor similarly non-legitimate Nazarbayev and Lukashenko will be interested in having a legitimate and democratic president in their ranks. The problem is in the type. This type is deniable for them. Whereas Putin has, is and will do everything that no legitimate government is formed in Armenia. Putin’s candidate for Armenia’s President has been and still is Serzh Sargsyan. If the Armenian politicians make the issue of regime change in Armenian dependent on Putin and Russia, then we can claim with confidence that Putin has not reasons for not supporting and defending hit candidate Serzh Sargsyan. Ultimately, Serzh Sargsyan has, is and will not do anything that would harm Putin’s programs. If a regime change were in Armenia, it would be only with the nation-wide pressure and in contrary to Russia. Russia will have to accept the will of our people and work with the new government. And not only Russia. It refers also to the West. In two rallies in a row, Ter-Petrosyan criticizes all those who express against the EaEU. Of course, he is right, there was no sufficient number of people in Armenia who would come out and express their complaints against joining the EaEU, but those available expressing against, expressed and are expressing. No matter how they seem few, they have the right to be expressed and criticize this verdict by the government authorities, and the logic dictates that they should not have appeared in the target of Levon Ter-Petrosyan. Ultimately, being few is not a great and deadly sin, in many cases it is even an advantage. It would be abnormal and shame if at least this number of people were not found in Armenia to express against the EaEU. Not to speak about that they, too, just like Ter-Petrosyan, claim that Armenia has appeared in the Eurasian Union because of Serzh Sargsyna’s untalented policy, adding only this untalented policy enabled Putin to dictate his will to Sargsyan. These people, as claimed by Ter-Petrosyan, are a handful and have no significant role to play. In this case, it is not clear what the need was so concentrate on criticizing these people for fear that they are inciting anti-Russian sentiments in us. I understand that Russia is a key player in our region, that it has a barbaric nature, and if wishes, it will be able to make us appear in a grave condition. The bright proof of it is the present-day Ukraine. I understand that political expediency can dictate certain rules of the game to the politician, but I do not understand this criticism of those expressing against EaEU.
– In the meantime, many comparisons were made with the public of 1988, also by Levon Ter-Petrosyan. Do you see comparisons?
– A comparison can be drawn only between our times and in 1988 in terms of the crowd in the rallies, but not in terms of suggested tasks. The routine of rally fighting and the forms of organizing can be common with 1988. I think this is what Levon Ter-Petrosyan was referring to. But my words do not mean that these movements with their essence are also comparable. The year of 1988 was a Karabakh movement. The aim of the movement was the solution of the Karabakh conflict, which in the meantime turned into a demand for independence. The movement begin in 2008 and continuing until now, these rallies solve a different quality of issue. Today, we have the task of democratization of already declared independent republic. The purpose of this movement is to bring the country to democratic value system. Also, the fighting force against the nation-wide movement is different. It does not look like the 1988 Soviet government.
Interviewed by Nelly GRIGORYAN
