I have already mentioned that the parliamentary opposition is highly vulnerable. The reason is that Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan are considered informal leaders of those two factions. CC members respond to any criticism of the government with the arguments “And Kocharyan,” “And Serzh Sargsyan.” It is enough to discredit what the oppositionists say in the eyes of the public, because the negative emotions towards the mentioned two figures are still preserved. (True, they have worn out a little in five years.) That approach immediately erases the substantive discussion of any issue because it allows the majority to take the debate into thirty years of history instead of discussing today’s problems.
For example, when it comes to the right of self-determination of Artsakh people, CC members divert the topic to the issue of what Kocharyan was negotiating at the time. Suppose something terrible was being negotiated; does that remove the point of the right to self-determination from the agenda? It’s not about the events that happened ten or twenty years ago. Today’s problem is posed differently: should Armenia defend the right of self-determination of the Armenians of Artsakh state-wise and, in particular, in the diplomatic arena? Or is it not up to date?
Another example is the debate surrounding the Judge of the Constitutional Court, Seda Safaryan. Is the subject of discussion how independent was the Constitutional Court under Kocharyan or Sargsyan? I, for example, see the problem elsewhere. As Hrayr Tovmasyan was politicized in the “RPA direction,” Seda Safaryan is politicized in the “anti-Kocharyan” theme. In my view, the Judge should not have political preferences.
But, I repeat, since hindsight is a tool that works, for now, the parliamentary majority continues to use that trick successfully.
Read also
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
