Campaign videos have popped up on the Internet, which call on saying “no” to the Constitutional amendments. I like the videos, there is a creativity, humor and easiness. Of course, if we are very strict, specific we can express certain considerations about “artistic role” and “directing solutions”, but these videos anyway still are different from the traditional forms of the political campaign.
And this, above all, is a proof of the fact that both the world and our country has been changed a lot over 10 years. Do you remember, in 2008, the opposition campaign was disseminated with the help of DVDs? It was much more expensive and dozens of times more efficient than what is done by the Internet. Today, many obstacles pertaining to dissemination of ideas have disappeared, and no “Amalayan Commission” can seriously prevent it.
It remains the content and the plot of the narration be actual. So far, the narration by most of the politicians remains, conditionally speaking, in the style of Arshak Sadoyan. A stereotyped scheme is selected, which is repeated dozens and hundreds of times. Arshak Sadoyan, for instance, had his favorite “clichés” in the 90’s, in particular, he was calling the authorities “worse than the Turks.” Protestant masses liked it a lot, and when Mr. Sadoyan was going to a public place, many people were stretching their hands towards him to touch such a “bold” and “righteous” man. “Gobbles fuel oils” is also a “found” formula, but is failed to work for 100 percent as it was directed against the previous authorities, and the target of the hatred of the aforementioned mass primarily is the authorities at the moment.
Today’s political thinking is also stereotyped. For example, if a few dozen politicians come together in one room and make fiery speeches, they conclude from their own speeches, “our opponents are afraid of us.” First, it is difficult to prove, secondly, whether the goal of the political campaign is to scare each other. Or, if an “offended” appears in the government system, who is “disappointed” of the share given to him, the conclusion must be as follows, “the Kleptocracy gives cracks”, “the rat race has started,” “a panic in the government camp.”
Young people do not think with this worn out stereotypes, sometimes they have to repeat the formulas of the “elders”. No need to put much pressure on them, and in this case, I am sure, they will come out from the 25-years circuit.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
