It is evident that the system of insecurity benefits should be improved. There are people, families, who live by average or even higher financial means than the average, but they do not hesitate to receive the money from those benefits by using corruption schemes cutting them from the mouth of the real ones who need them. But whatever is done under the name of “stricter standards” first and foremost does not hinder the aforementioned corruption schemes at all, and secondly, it is unfair towards the ones who need them indeed.
We speak of the following, in particular: the man of the family emigrates out of extreme need, the woman stays here jobless and keeps her children due to money sent by her husband. In what case is a family in Armenia considered indigent and, consequently, a beneficiary, and in what case it is not? It is very difficult to answer to that question. One month the husband sends 100 dollars, another month 500, and it happens he does not send anything at all sometimes. By the way, one time he can transfer money via banking system, another time he can bring it by himself or send it in cash with an acquaintance of his, and another time he asks his friend to buy the necessary food for his family with the condition to “give him back the given.” Should that woman run from respective department to department to prove she is indigent? Is it possible to control and have an objective picture of those finances sent by “migrant workers”? I think – not. To find out when people lie to this government and when not, is similarly impossible, I think.
In Armenia (perhaps in other countries as well) the beneficiaries are interested in representing their state as bad as possible from the real one. But to pursue the women in fact having stayed without husbands due to that suspicion… I do not consider it right both from moral and legal perspective and it is difficult to realize technically as well.
I know that my suggestion will be neither pleasant to hear nor strict, but maybe it is worth thinking that people should not cherish hopes for insecurity benefits from the government. As odd as it is, but sometimes living by insecurity benefit constrains the wish of people to go to work. Cases are known when people refuse the job offer suggesting salary of 150.000 AMD for the benefit costing 60.000. The logic is plain, 150.000 exists today and may disappear tomorrow, and 60.000 is guaranteed by the government.
Maybe my suggestion sounds cruel. But it seems to me, to check people’s decency part by part is more cruel.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
