All people in the world, including the citizens of Armenia, are against violence deep in their heart. Simply, sometimes people’s interests are arranged in a way that they become implementers or advocators of the violence. Specifically, in the case of Baghramyan Avenue, there are some government representatives and supporters who would wish for a violence. Why? Because, perhaps, these people have some psychological problems and complexes to show a “fist” and “manly”. Do you remember we also had such a president, who was the principal supporter of the fist?
Some oppositions would also wish for the violence. They calculate that thus the situation will be escalated, and it will open a way to their desired goal: the change of government. This group, naturally, seeks to radicalize the protest and does everything for Baghramyan Avenue to remain closed.
Neither the behavior of the first nor the second group who pursue the interest in violence is reprehensible. They are politicians, their “job” is to preserve or to take over the regime. Thereby, they are no different from any other country’s politicized masses.
And what about the rest? Here, of course, so many people, so many opinions. I can only talk about me. I, for example, would not block Baghramyan Avenue because bothering others (people who live there or are waiting in the traffic jams) who are not associated with my “job” is not one of my principles.
Read also
What comes to the basic violence, then everyone here should also speak on its behalf rather than on behalf of any group, moreover, the people. What I am doing is not aimed at someone to praise or criticize me. Nor I am so narcissistic to beat my chest and say, did you see what I did? Simply, every moment I’m asking to myself, what am I doing to make the atmosphere in my soul, my home, my work, my contact environment, my country and all the world be more peaceful and tolerant? In that context, I consider my duty not to allow any violence by anyone within the range of my power, to prevent it by oral or written speech and conduct. Violence as a method of fight or “anti-fight” should be excluded in principle, and the justifications of “so what about us” and “so what about them” should not be accepted as “respected”.
Is it always successful? Certainly, not. It cannot always be successful. But I am sure that one good deed or one kind word, no matter how small it is, if it is sincere, it has a greater power than several-meter waves of evil and hatred surrounding us.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
