Two editions of our newspaper published the article of Ph.D. in Law, visitor of the Duke University, US, Professor and founding director of the Yerevan-based Institute of Apella NGO, Armen Mazmanyan, which is titled “Why “No”? The subject is about critical analysis of the draft Constitution, which results in saying “No”. They are scientific and logical arguments. Apparently, there are other lawyers with different opinions. But the tone of the article is quite acceptable for me, moreover, welcomed because the article lacks senseless emotions and cheap political speculations.
On the background of general social apathy, a few dozen people think that “Yes” or “No” solves the issue of their seat, and they preach as if presidential elections are going to be held on December 6. The others, who are writing abuse on the Internet, whip visible and invisible enemies, they were just “possessed” by this subject, they believed in these few dozen people’s allegations that the issue of the authorities will be decided by the Constitutional referendum.
This is where the Internet and party television violent propaganda, swearing, poison and pus come from, which is sometimes called a “civic position”.
Most of the population does not care about the lust of “Yes” and “No”. They are interested in kind and good officials to come who will “look after these people,” will “open factories” for them, will give normal wages and pension fees. The figures are going to the citizens who have such expectations and, in fact, are trying to cheat them. “Do you want to have all of that? Then, say “yes” (“no”).” One and a half years later, the same people will again go to the “people” and will try to cheat again. “Do you want to have all of that? Then, elect us.”
Read also
No politician has and will have the courage to say, dear people, your expectations are not realistic, no one will look after you, no one will open a factory for you, no one will facilitate your life. Everything depends on you, and if you do not like your current situation, then only you bear the responsibility for it. Of course, what I am writing now is contrary to all the rules on political propaganda. But someone should be able to tell the truth to the people by opposing the populist speeches.
Try, for example, to tell people that they need to live by the laws. It will cause an intense wrath upon them, and they will begin listing the names of the rich, who do not live by the law. After this, the dispute on how these laws should be formulated, including the Constitution, is pointless.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
