I, frankly speaking, do not understand well what is meant by “Centennial without regime.” First, the word regime could be interpreted somewhat freely. The opposition members put a special negative accent, “regime did this,” “regime wants that.”
While “regime” is quite a neutral word meaning a “political system”. It seems that it is not about the political system in general, but this system. And consequently, the objective of the opposition should be gradually transforming Armenia’s today’s mild authoritarian system into a democratic system. Hardly any reasonable person would argue about its necessity as it is the only possible way for the development of Armenia. Is this what the Founding Parliament wants? Hardly. It is more likely that like the rest of the opposition members, under the word “regime” they understand Serzh Sargsyan. But since the founding parliamentarians, apparently, want to change the power also in NKR, then it would be more accurate to call the movement “Centennial without regimes.”
Now, about the original centennial. It should be assumed that the matter is about the centennial of the Armenian Genocide, which is going to be this year, on April 24. Therefore, if we open the vague slogan and try to convert it into a more understandable language, then it perhaps means “to do so that by April 24, 2015, not Serzh Sargsyan but another President will be the leader of Armenia.” It is likely, however, that it means, “executing revolution on April 24, 2015, and change the President.”
Note that associating the domestic political fight with April 24, even in terms of time, is not accepted in the independent Armenia’s opposition practice. (To the point, it was also not accepted to hold Armenia’s opposition rallies and demonstrations in Artsakh). On the contrary, since April 24, 1988, the opposition (the then “Karabakh Committee”) was calling on that day to honor the victims in silence and dignified way. I see a deep sense in such posture of the opposition, on that day we all act not as representatives of this-or-that political power but simply as Armenians.
Read also
I certainly do not doubt in personally Zhirayr Sefilyan’s sincerity and patriotism. There are refined intellectuals next to him who will bring honor to any political party. There are also suspicious persons who are catching fish in troubled waters. But this is not the problem. The problem, it seems to me, is in the methodological error of Founding Parliament, when this group refuses to act as a political force, as a political party, voicing, however, apparently, political slogans. Such duality inevitably leads to errors.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
