I do not want to write a lot about “October 27”. Talking about it once a year has become a tradition like “April 24” or “March 1”. All unanswered questions are known, sounding them for the 16th time does not add any new information. Today, of course, the websites will publish materials with approximately the following subject line, “new, sensational revelations about October 27”. Perhaps, there will be naïve people who will open the material posted under this heading. Well, no matter how cynical it may sound, “October 27” is a “brand” (like the other listed two), tragic, bloody, but a “brand”, which enables to work a few “clicks”.
The only thing about which one can speak for sure and without a doubt is as follows: Who benefited from this, in this case, tragic events? I think it is not difficult to answer these questions for all three cases. Certainly, it is desirable to get full information about the occurrence, but if it is (hopefully, until now) not impossible, we can judge by the results. For instance, specifically for “October 27”, people sometimes used to say that the then military prosecutor Gagik Jhangiryan was very close to the disclosure of the organizers, but Robert Kocharyan prevented him. First of all, if there were such deep contradictions between them, then why some time later, Jhangiryan was appointed to the position of Deputy Prosecutor General. However, even if this hypothesis is correct, anyway, in life as in sports, “almost” is not counted, either you score a goal or not. The retrospective glance and mental sufferings, “if it were the case, then it would be so” are purely theoretical.
Pertaining to other things, it is also necessary to judge by the results. Tigran Sargsyan, mist likely, is a prominent economist, a brilliant intellectual and so on, but the economic indicators during his tenure as a Prime Minister, by official data, were sliding downwards. In the last one year, by the same data, there are some signs of stabilization. (Of course, we may not believe the Statistic Service data, but in that case, we should deny all data rather than believe in bad but not in good).
The same for the activities of the opposition. Now, a part of the opposition members says that there is no need to spend resources on the constitutional referendum because it is the political agenda of the authorities. The other part says that those who think so are agents of Baghramyan-26. Who is right? This problem is solved very easily. If the “front-“makers manage to overthrow the constitutional referendum, and if afterwards the government will not be reproduced, then they were right. If they fail, then they were wrong.
Read also
Or, if the “Heritage”, “The Founding Parliament” and Hmayak Hovannisyan will manage to save the nation and create a New Armenia, they will put all the doubters to shame.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
