If the principle of voluntary is added in the bill of “1000 AMD” from the first reading to the second reading, the main problem associated with it, in my opinion, will be solved. And the number of people who were against this bill will significantly reduce as in the case of coercion, it becomes not a donation but a hidden tax.
As for those who are anyway against this idea, in the case of voluntary principal, there will be a solution for them: the employee is writing an application to the accountant of his working place saying that he refused to pay 1000 AMD from his salary and this sum will not be deducted from his wages.
The reasons may vary: “I am poor”, “I do not trust these authorities”, “I am sure that this money will be stolen”, “I hate the Republican Party”, “Unless the trophy of all thieves is returned to the people, I will not pay”, “Unless the constitutional order is restored in Armenia and free and just elections are held, I will not pay”,” Unless members of “Sasna Tsrer” are released and Sefilyan’s “road map” is implemented, I will not pay”, “Unless Western Armenia becomes part of the Republic of Armenia, I will not pay” and so on. Certainly, you may not write any reason, just put down, “I refuse to pay” and that’s it. And it should not be viewed as a something condemnable.
The main problem connected with the establishment of the foundation will thus be resolved. (The problems with corruption, plunder, mansions, justice and especially, Western Armenia certainly will not be solved therewith but there will be so many occasions to speak about it). Importantly, the principle of voluntary will function. Suppose 90 percent of the employees will refuse to pay AMD 1000 but instead, many people like I will pay 10 000 AMD and thus the amount envisaged by the foundation will be collected. I think that at least 10% of all employees in Armenia are thinking like me.
Read also
… In 1823-24, popular publicist and amateur music writer living in Vienna, Anton Diabelli, acted with an interesting initiative. He was composing waltz and suggested the most prominent composers of his times to write variations based on them. It was planned to publish them in one set and transfer the profit to the children affected by the Napoleonic wars and widows of the deceased soldiers.
Thus, 50 variations were written down, and from the “prominent” composers: Franz Schubert, Karl Czerny and his 7-year-old pupil Liszt Ferencz took part in the project. Beethoven first refused to join the initiative not because he did not want to help the widows but principally being against the “collective creative work”. But later, he separately wrote 33 variations on Diabelli’s works to prove that it is possible to create a masterpiece based this untalented and even salon-type waltz. Again, the quality won over the quantity.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
