PhD of political science and professor Garik Keryan, the guest of Aravot’s “Areresum (Confrontation)” program emphasized the dialogue between the government and the opposition. “It can be a certain method or tool to get out of the situation. Let’s remember that there are many examples in history when such a dialogue occurs at a critical moment, during a war, or severe socio-economic and political crises. A very typical example was recently in Israel. When the situation became complicated, the current prime minister started immediate consultations with the former prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. And when they communicated with each other, it could not be said at all that they were political opponents.”
Meanwhile, the second President of Armenia, Robert Kocharyan, is convinced that if the government needed consolidation, it would take practical steps. “Where is that initiative? How did he express himself? Why did you decide that it is needed? It does not, because it is not ready to unite the people for high goals.” The other guest of the program, PhD of political science, professor, and chair of the YSU Applied Sociology department Artur Atanesyan, addressing the question of whether he sees signals from the government that would prove that they are aware of the need for consolidation, said, “The opposition that came to power in 2018 continues to play the opposition. Until today, it has not left the revolutionary image and is fighting against the “internal enemy,” as it was then in 2018. And in fact, we have 2 oppositions in Armenia. We have no government.”
He added that until today, all problems are attributed to the pre-revolutionary government. “These two types of opposition see each other as a problem and an enemy. And we don’t have a government that, like a landlord, should see all the problems from beginning to end and be able to solve them professionally. It is not surprising that these authorities also did not need experts and professional resources because revolutionaries usually do not show a professional approach- they use forceful means. And it turns out that the power of these authorities, people who still have a revolutionary mentality, only affects the former regime, and they cannot solve any problems outside of Armenia.”
Are the expectations from the meetings of the former presidents of Armenia and Artsakh and the Catholicos of All Armenians justified, or will they find a way out of the current situation? Meanwhile, it is the participants of the meeting who state that the country should remove the government from the crisis, and not the former presidents, who have no leverage today. Emphasizing that there is no complete information on the issues discussed during these meetings, Garik Keryan said, “Perhaps during that consultation, a lot of useful advice was given that could be presented to the authorities.” The political scientist drew attention to the fact that these discussions involve people who were fierce opponents in the past. “And if the former opponents finally threw away their ambitions and for the sake of the interests of the state and nation gathered in the spiritual center for a consultation, why didn’t they turn to the current prime minister? Who would come and present what the situation is, and what are the proposals?”
Read also
Levon Ter-Petrossian’s summary is that Armenia has capitulated. It is possible that after 6 months, we will find ourselves in a much more difficult situation. Any agreement will be very painful. Therefore, we must jointly decide what is the least painful solution, and jointly bear responsibility for that decision. Meanwhile, Robert Kocharyan, agreeing that we are in a very difficult situation, considering it possible that we don’t even have that 6 months, suggests trying to avoid painful solutions. His proposed solutions are to make a partial change of power, strengthen the army in a short time through Iran and Russia and prepare for a new war. “I don’t know what can be done, but I am in favor of the suggestions of “doing” and not giving in and giving away,” said Artur Atanesyan in this regard. “But more important than wisdom is the ability to act today. And I see this in Kocharyan, who has quite a few flaws.”
Responding to the proposal to prepare for a new war, Garik Keryan said, “Even at an amateur level, reading many studies by military experts, where the forces or military capabilities of Armenia and Azerbaijan are weighed down, one thing becomes very obvious: to talk about a new war means to talk about the final destruction of Armenia.”
“For many of us, it does not matter who will propose a plan to raise Armenia up. We are ready to participate in it,” said Artur Atanesyan. “But no one offers it. And here, for me, the opposition and the government have become representatives of a very similar political culture. They both created mirror images of each other passively.”
Anna ISRAELYAN
