Sometimes, I am read the complaints of opposition figures and publicists: the voters are guided by their interests. A question arises: what else should they be guided by, maybe by your interests? The matter, of course, is in the fact that during the elections, the citizens are taking money, as well as “advancing” their business, or are tempted by the fact that the uncle of brother-in-law gets a “slight” position. What is the alternative of being guided by these interests? The bright future that the oppositions promise based on their personal values? If they are not tempted by this, then for the voters (and, by the way, often also for with opposition members of the Commission) the prospect of the bright future is less convincing than the goods in “cash”. Certainly, one can condemn these citizens in the manner of morality but the life patterns are not changed thereof. You can be against the power of gravity but the laws of physics are not changed from this rebellion: they function independently of our will.
The law of social science is that people in Armenia, Ethiopia, the United States and Greenland are guided by interests. These interests, certainly, could also be intangible: human dignity, prosperity and security of the community and the state, being helpful to people and so on. The “hierarchy” of interests is determined by several factors: personal and social, including by the “regime.” But under the oppositions’ favorite word, we must understand the whole political system and not only the government behavior.
It is said that the political parties showing good results in the local self-government elections had certain shady arrangements. Suppose, it is so. Do you exclude that there are similar arrangements between Clinton and Trump, as well as between the US Republicans and Democrats (Congressional elections are expected)? They constantly mirror the true arrangement of forces at the given moment.
The arrangement of forces in Gyumri and Vanadzor was so that the political parties had to make arrangements. Which is better: when one party decides everything, or when 3 or 4 parties, irrespective of how “sincere opposition” they are, enter into a dialogue? Will the three parties in Vanadzor agree to support the opposition candidate for the mayor? Very good. If they do not agree, anyway, the return point is already in the past. The Republican mayor no longer can make unilateral decisions.
Read also
The ratio of interests is as such. There is nothing good or bad in the interests. It is something like a gravity.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
