Today, many people speak out that our diplomats and other functionaries when communicating with foreign (primarily, Russian) officials, they do not have sufficient dignified stance, they look a sort of miserable, do not speak and act as delegates of the warring country. The remark is mainly true but the conversation often diverts to the private domain whereas the problem is not only personal.
Yes, a diplomat, a minister or a deputy who represent our country in the international arena must have a high intellect, volitional features and preparedness. But even if they are endowed with these features, it is highly important what country they represent. If they represent a country where Surik Khachatryan or Arakel Movsisyan are the ones to solve the problems, it already weakens the position of the aforementioned parliamentarians, diplomats and functionaries. Having another, higher in quality state in the rear, they are more confident and have a more dignified stance. Again, it is a matter of interrelations of “inwardly” and “outwardly”.
Although little time has elapsed after the April war and making judgments is perhaps too early but so far no changes are seen in the internal life. The mayoral elections in Hrazdan are no different from all the previous elections. Under the discussions on Electoral Code, the RPA representatives were persistent and are reluctant to go for any concessions on any principle matter. Hence, there are no positive signals, not counting Mihran Poghosyan’s resignation which however the official has submitted it with quite strange substantiations.
There is no need to conduct an in-depth sociological survey to understand particularly which phenomena and who are causing anger among the public. Since it is clear that the threat hanging over Artsakh and Armenia is really serious and we are going to expect years of united resistance, it stems from the interests of the government to reduce the obvious graceless and arrogant “phenomena”.
Read also
…However, targeting the famous practice and the famous “personages” duly (but restrained) does not mean disseminating “gruesome stories”. I understand that a part of the society is longing for throwing dirt, irrespective of who the target is and what grounds are there for giving a splash of negative emotions. But, for example, personal insults addressed to the “VivaCell” director and his family, I think, cannot be an “informational reason” for inciting such emotions. Without getting into the “roamings” and other technical problems, I must say that the discharge of the “dosage of poison” on this matter, to put it mildly, does not help the case.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
