In my opinion, the parliamentary discussion of the bill on “Military Service and the Status of the Soldier” represented by the Minister of Defence went down a wrong path. Although wrong, but with personal emphases very characteristic of the Armenian political culture: “have you served in the army?”, “you do not have right to speak at all because you have not served in the army”, “how have you served?”, “why have you received a certificate?”
All that is assuredly very interesting, but has no connection with the content of the bill. Generally, the expression “you do not have right to speak up on this topic, because…”, in my opinion, is not an argument. Everyone have the right to speak about everything: “Shmays” [former member of Parliament Arakel Movsisyan] – about politeness, Vazgen Khachikyan [former head of State Social Security Service] – about the fight against corruption, Robert Kocharyan [the second president of the Republic of Amenia] – about democracy and press freedom. No one’s mouth should be closed by the argument “who’s cow would mow”, in this condition, the content of the debate is changing.
Nevertheless, giving preference to the “trend” of the parliamentary discussions, I should confess – I have not served in the Soviet Army (in the years of my youth, the army was a Soviet one). After graduating from Conservatory, I have worked in a village as a teacher for 3 years, and that was a legal release from the army. At that time (1983-86) in such law, I think, there was a sense. The state possessing massive human recourses found that a part of the youth with higher education should fill in the vacancies of the village schools. Of course, there were young people who bribed the principal of the school and continued to live carelessly in Yerevan. However, I, personally, as you understand, was teaching with a clear conscience (the ones who wish, can check it out), the experience of those 3 years was beneficial both to me and, I am hopeful, to my pupils and colleagues.
Currently (in 2017) I similarly see a logic in the changes suggested: the young people with higher education can be useful to the army and serve as an officer by privileged conditions (if they want) or before entering the university serve as a soldier for 2 years. Assuredly, here some gaps left for corruption may be present as well, about which the MPs should think until the second reading. But the principle is correct – the contemporary army and the contemporary war are more “technological” than 20 years before. Now more than ever the young people can afford themselves no worries: who has a say within science or in another field, will importantly express it. The army will not distract.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
