Two days ago, my interlocutor on “Shant” TV was the former Chairman of the Central Bank and renowned economist Bagrat Asatryan. The theme was the Eurasian Economic Union about which he estimates are mostly negative. But I have always liked his style of criticism.
First, prior to coming to any interview, he is definitely “armed” with figures so that his estimates are based on the facts and are not just pronounced.
Secondly, he never gives live interviews to emphasize his personality and to enjoy narcissist pleasures.
And finally, when presenting his opposition views he does not look for occasions to mandatorily say an offensive word against specific persons.
Read also
The fact that our economic situation, in particular, is poor, I think, no one doubts about it. But the economist is speaking not by hackneyed formulas of “the criminal regime with its untalented policy” but specifically points out what is bad, why it is bad and what should be done to make it better. This approach seems to me more solid and more convincing. I don’t know, maybe the “broad masses” like the labels repeated for 25 years more, it a matter of taste. But if we want to understand the essence of the phenomena, then “drier” and professional analysis seems to be more preferable. I get the impression of just the same solid analysis when Avetik Ishkhanyan is speaking about human rights.
You will say that the mentioned people are not political figures. But here is a question: is hysteria, yellers, stereotypical limitation and self-love bordering narcissism included in the concept of a “political figure”? Maybe it was so. But life moves on. I do not know how much the public awareness and educational level is growing but people, especially the young generation, has become more informed and less naïve. Poor pensioners can be cheated with hackneyed formulas, this does not require much efforts here to generate hatred and anger, some of these citizens, one way or another, will come to the Liberty Square. If this is the problem then the notion of a “political figure”, which we are accustomed to, shall not be subject to any modification.
But the ambitions of political forces seem to be different: they want either to come to power through elections or stage a coup to seize Baghramyan 26. In both cases, we need to have conscious, sober-minded and proactive groups of people; you cannot make these people rise with “antediluvian” statements about the “criminal regime”. We should not be lazy and be “armed” with the instruments to improve the situation. The result that you have achieved is directly proportional to the efforts that you have exerted. This is true not only in the politics.
Incidentally, experience shows that making a deal for the majority of those who swear by bell and yell is more likely.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
