So far, no seriousness is observed in criticizing the constitutional amendments
Thus, the main “trend” of criticizing the constitutional reform is as follows: with the help of these amendments, the Republican Party received the majority in parliament, Serzh Sargsyan remains the head of the party, is moved to Melik-Adamyan Street and rules the country fro there. Like Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev.
Since the people who voice this fantastic scenario are quite imputable people, and many of them are well-respected political figures, I can assume two things: a/ they are too lazy to read and discuss the draft, b/ they believe that with such campaign they will promote the consolidation of the opposition masses and the future revolution. Both together, of course, are possible.
Thus, the mistakes are repeated, which the opposition has done over the past two decades. First, one and a half years prior to the elections, it announces that the Republican Party will win the elections. I have already written what kind of negative psychological impact it has on the opposition electorates. In other words, the Republican Party and the rest announce that RPA will win. Who else can pour more water on the mill of the government?
Read also
But one more mistake underlies this approach, to say the least, the postulate, according to which, Armenia’s political system in 2015 somehow looks like, let’s say, the Soviet Union system in 1975. In other words, in 1975, it was possible to organize opposition rallies and protest marches, in 1975, there were opposition MPs in the Supreme Council, who unsparingly were criticizing the Communists, in 1975, the oppositions were giving interviews to the legally operating media and were demanding Brezhnev’s resignation, in 1975, there were an Internet and Facebook which were not censored in any way. Or, today, little Armenia may be isolated from all over the world by an iron curtain and “be obstinate” in the event when huge Russia fails doing it.
The forecast that the head of the ruling party, having no position in the state system, may have a decisive influence on the decisions of the executive and legislative powers, again does not take into account the realities of modern Armenia. Let’s assume, a different person becomes the owner of “Aravot” newspaper, to whom I sell or donate the newspaper, and I, let’s say, remain the “chairman emeritus” or the “honorary founder.” This person, who will have real leverage, will perhaps express his reverence to me in the first two months and may even sometimes ask for advice. However, in the future, if I try guiding the work of the newspaper, he will send me far away because he is the one who is responsible for everything. (Approximately the same thing has happened with ex-president Robert Kocharyan, and perhaps, driven from this situation, he had begun to be upset and manifest an opposition stance). If I wish to have leverage in “Aravot” newspaper constantly, I should declare myself a lifelong owner and editor, just as it is done by the leaders of Azerbaijan, Central Asia, Latin America and a number of African countries.
Ultimately, I would like to mention the main methodological error of the opposition members or perhaps the majority of our society: we excessively focus on individuals, especially on the first figures about what the current or the former presidents have done or will do, who was better of them and so on. These are secondary and deadlock leading questions. The political force, I think, should focus on what they are doing and will be doing.
What I said does not mean, however, that the proposed draft on the constitutional amendments is a good one. Quite the contrary. Simply what I propose is that we should find more serious arguments than the absurd hypothesis of the “Brezhnev system”.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN,
«Aravot” daily
