I know how unacceptable my point of view is for many, but I have to reiterate that Shant Harutyunyan did something that is punishable by law, and he should’ve been fined, let’s say, 100,000 dram for it, but not have been imprisoned for 6 years. There is definitely an element of political persecution in such an unnecessarily long sentence, which, in my opinion, is decided by “winds coming from the north.” I wrote that about five years ago on the day when sticks and firecrackers were used and there were clashes with law enforcement. I repeated it many times in the future. Justice needs to be reinstalled. The mistake made by the court, which was definitely decided upon due to pressure from “above,” needs to be fixed. But how? A mistake made by the court can only be fixed through another court decision. In this case, the prime minister is correct. Harutyunyan’s lawyers can appeal to national and international instance courts demanding justice. The leader of the working authorities should not tell judges what they should decide. Otherwise, the practice used prior to the revolution will continue.
These are the rules which are acceptable for me personally. But there are people who don’t want to play by the rules, and if they are doing that to hurt themselves, sacrificing their own comfort, then that’s worth respect. These people’s speeches can be long and scattered, their thoughts “not combed through,” and their critical arguments can be hazy. But these deviations from normalcy, if they are made with honest intentions, finally promote the upholding of norms. This thought may seem contradictory at first. In reality, if there are no fakes among the extreme nonconformists, then there will be no hypocrisy or secret calculations. On one hand, it’s very sobering and it makes us more careful, and on the other hand it widens our horizons. Shouldn’t the norm be broadening for our society, and be something that gets rid of unusual thoughts and phenomena?
I see Shant Harutyunyan’s mission here. In “classical” politics, especially in the state system, such people don’t have any functional purpose. But their mission is perhaps even higher. They use their bold thought to appeal not to reason, but to the conscience, and it forces us to think outside of the box. Now, how often that works out for us- that’s a different question.
I hope that Shant will be freed somehow and will facilitate progress in his unique way.
Aram Abrahamyan
