On May 27, 1989, the president of the Moscow Historical Archive Institute, Yuri Afanasyev, who had a more progressive view than the majority of the USSR People’s Assembly, described the majority as “aggressive-obedient.” Aggressive, because in order to seduce the “boss,” they were ready, as they say, to “jump” on the “face” of any opponent, and obedient, because with their behavior, they eventually fulfilled the will of that “boss.”
Most of the National Assemblies of Armenia, starting from 1995, continuing with the RPA members and ending with the last two convocations, have the exact same majority. The novelty of the current convocation is that the NA Speaker, apparently not being able to control the boiling passions in the hall, invites police forces to the hall during the day and does not allow the journalists to film all that fuss. From all other points of view, in particular, in terms of pleasing the “beloved leader,” the Civil Contract members do not differ from the Communists, the Pan-Armenian National Movement, or the RPA.
But I want to talk about the attitude of the opposite side, the minority, the opposition, returning to the Congress of USSR People’s Deputies. What did the “aggressive-obedient” majority have in common with one of the most famous physicists of the 20th century, academic Sakharov? Have you ever heard him raise his voice, insult, or label anyone during that convention? Let us also remember that he was not a good orator at all; he spoke slowly while shuddering and swallowing. During his speeches, the “aggressive-obedient” stomped their feet, shouted, and applauded, but Sakharov did not pay any attention to that. He said very calmly what corresponded to his beliefs. For example, it was a fatal mistake to send troops to Afghanistan, and it was a crime to kill thousands of young people in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. Of course, you can analyze these two events from a pragmatic point of view, that’s normal. But Sakharov spoke solely on the basis of his principles.
The tactics of the current opposition in the National Assembly are different. They want to become more “Pashinyan” than Pashinyan; that is, to be more scandalous, grumpier, and more demagogic than the current authorities. It is clear what logic guides the opposition. If Pashinyan succeeded, then they will succeed too. But in reality, by playing in the “opponent’s field,” they will always lose.
Read also
There is also a more compelling reason for the opposition’s failures, which was voiced by the Prime Minister several times yesterday. The meaning of what he said is the following, “Everything that you, the opposition, have said, has been written, said, read, and heard many times. The people know very well what you are accusing me of. But they did not believe you, they did not follow you. They chose me.” It is impossible to argue with this thesis, with the specification that the word “people” should be replaced by the wording “majority of citizens participating in the elections.” And that majority delegated to the “aggressive-obedient” majority already mentioned in the parliament. With all the ensuing consequences.
Aram Abrahamyan
