I do not know whether you will agree with me or not, but it seems the sessions of the National Assembly of this convocation are not interesting. Assuredly, there are wonderful MPs in this staff as well, but anyway, the general background is rather prosaic. And I think the reason is that the specialists lack – such MPs as Hrant Bagratyan and Gagik Jhangiryan. Overall, Armenian National Congress was an important shade to the Parliament, I tell this, for the majority of cases not sharing the political direction of that party, moreover, their acting style.
The Parliament needs people who cannot be named classical political figures, who view the issues from mere professional perspective, and the economist and lawyer I mentioned are this kind of figures. Hrant Bagratyan, of course, has a daring character, sometimes he is extremely haughty and categorical. Lately he was again “caught in scandal” because of his extremist assessment of the role of the church. I will probably have an opportunity to write on that topic: let me simply mention here that in my opinion, nothing should be absolutized, including the positive or negative role of a church, religion or belief. But when Bagratyan was talking on economic topics in the Parliament, it became clear immediately that he knows, he has read, studied materials 100, 1000 times bigger than he represents from the tribune of the Parliament. Although the representatives of the government’s economic bloc did not agree with him, they took his opinion into consideration, tried to find arguments, etc. I think Bagratyan’s absence is a serious loss to the Parliament.
Gagik Jhangiryan, mildly said, is not similarly an embodiment of perfection. Moreover, as to my impression, he has spoiled his karma so much in the position of military prosecutor, that if we use the “Indian” parallel, I would not envy the body inside which it is probable that his soul will “reside in” some 50 or 100 years later. That body will have to make efforts to transform spiritually. But the activity of Jhangiryan as an MP, I think, was very useful for a simple reason – that he is a specialist. The speeches of that MP were deprived of political shadings, labels. He was speaking being deeply conscious of all legal nuances, all traps and obstructions of the plans.
And what can be more important than the quality of the law to the Parliament?
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
