The government’s intention for optimization and decreasing the number of ministries is clear: save on the state budget, including on vacancies, service vehicles, fuel, representative costs, and being free of excessive bureaucratic burdens. Those against optimization approach the issue from a solely “lyrical” perspective- without the Ministry of Culture, Armenian culture will be destroyed, without the Ministry of Diaspora, the Diaspora will remain without a leader, etc. Since the majority of worries are not regarding the Ministry of Agriculture or the unification of the Water Committee but instead are regarding the Ministries of Culture and Diaspora, we will discuss those.
They say that we need to listen to opinions from the Diaspora regarding the Ministry of Diaspora. I do not agree. Dozens of workers at the ministry receive their salaries from taxpayers living in the Republic of Armenia, and therefore, they need to ask us, the citizens of Armenia, our opinion. But the citizens voted for the current composition of parliament, which needs to discuss the problem and vote on either accepting or rejecting the new structure of government. In my opinion, the work we have done with the Diaspora over the past 28 years has been unsatisfactory, both before we had the Ministry of Diaspora and afterwards. The biggest flaw is that we have retained the Soviet logic for a “Diasporan Committee,” through hosting events, parties, oaths of unity, and more. That was justified when we did not have an independent state. Now, those events probably stimulate arrogance in some Diasporan Armenians, but they don’t have anything to do with the agenda of the Armenian government. Our agenda includes security, economy, education, and lobbyism, where the Diaspora can play a huge role. When I asked the Minister of Diaspora, Mkhitar Hayrapetyan, about this, he immediately responded that it would be better that I ask the Ministry of Foreign Affairs such questions. That authority undoubtedly needs to be strengthened, and its activities need to be more widespread. A structure similar to the US Department of State needs to be established that will also take care of issues regarding the Diaspora.
The same goes for the Ministry of Culture. If there are no cultural policies, then what’s the difference if there aren’t any policies when there’s a separate ministry or a united committee? But if such policies are in place, then they can be carried out no matter the state of the structure.
Of course, there will be a decrease in professionals. But why should having a place in the bureaucracy be a way to solve social problems? It’s too bad that there will be people who will become unemployed, but it’s even worse for those of us who pay taxes when we keep large ineffective structures in place.
Aram Abrahamyan
