The sittings of the National Assembly, during which the deputies make statements or ask questions to the government, cause me to feel depressed. That, of course, deepens the feeling of disaster that all normal Armenians are experiencing today. In the case of the specific parliament, the reason for my depression is not only the arrogant and cynical attitude of Pashinyan and the Civil Contract but also the actions of the opposition.
The problem is the duality of the parliamentary opposition. The opposition must adopt one of two tactics. 1/ They accept that Pashinyan is the country’s leader in terms of society; therefore, he has a place to speak, justify himself, answer questions, and blame others. 2/ They think that after the terrible disasters that befell our people and state, Pashinyan should have sat in a dark corner, not making a sound and being ashamed to be seen in front of people. (As I think).
In the case of the first position, the opposition MPs should adopt the forms of classical parliamentary struggle without shouting, labeling, and constantly getting into low-level language fights. In the second case, they have nothing to do in the parliament.
When the opposition tries to combine these two approaches, we get the situation we have today. Deputies of the “Hayastan” and “With Honor” factions believe they can outdo the CC members and Pashinyan himself with shouting, aggressiveness, and insults. But for this, one should have no moral “inhibitions” at all. For example, not to shy away from airing personal “compromise” from the NA podium. Fortunately or unfortunately, the opposition is not capable of this.
Read also
The only person who would be considered suitable in that role and would be able to “compete” with Pashinyan on a moral and intellectual level is Vardan Ghukasyan (“Dog”). Their audiences are roughly the same, and so are their fans’ cultural and educational standards.
Ghukasyan’s success in the Yerevan Council of Elders elections was not accidental.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
