As far as I remember, the discussion of the government program in the parliament proceeds with the following scheme. Government, “Our goals are moderate, but these are our means”. Opposition, “Do not steal, and there will be more means”. Government, “Prove that we steal”. Opposition, “So why are people poor, if you don’t steal?”. Government, “For objective reasons”. And so for 25 years.
The discussions are constantly held in bilateral populism. The government says fewer numbers, but pompous words, the opposition confines itself to “I do not believe” exclamation and refuses to propose the content for a discussion. With these repetitive situations, it is worth mentioning one negative and one positive feature.
The negative, in my opinion, is that the program is for 2017-2022. Five governments can change in five years, and taking into account that every subsequent government does not take the responsibility for the deeds of the previous government, you cannot know whatever to demand from whomever.
For example, the previous government had promised that the minimum wage would reach 65 thousand drams in 2017, which, however, did not happen. The current government promises to do approximately the same until 2022. Tomorrow will come a new government that will say another amount, or will not say any amount at all, and all this, to put it mildly, is not conducive to the formation of an atmosphere of trust. Therefore, the program should be written for one year.
But if the “five-year plan” option is selected, then, I believe, there must be interim numbers: this specific index will be such in 2018, it will be such in 2019, in order to verify whether the promises are fulfilled or not. Otherwise, until 2022, who knows, many things can change in the world, in the region and in Armenia.
Now about the positive. Great attention is paid to digitization, from the management system till taxation, customs, as well as the process of citizens’ requests and complaints. If the public has access to all the data relating to our state, including all citizens’ incomes and expenses (yes, of all citizens, so there is no case to “write a complaint on someone”), then this degree of transparency will essentially reduce what is referred to as “corruption risks” in bureaucratic language, which is one of the most important foundations of public trust.
It remains for us to be so competent to be able to use the open data already placed on the Internet. By saying “we”, I mean not only the journalists.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
