Putting one’s own “self” at the forefront carries great risks
On August 1, Armenia’s second president, Robert Kocharyan, gave an interview to TV5. As always, it was not without its critics. I’ll immediately set aside the remarks of those political and public figures who are “officially obligated” to say something negative about Kocharyan—because they are paid a salary or receive grants for doing so. But many others, who are themselves in the opposition or at least critical of the government, also sincerely debated the second president’s positions.
I agree with several of Kocharyan’s statements. For example: that taking control of ENA (Electric Networks of Armenia) is just another way to secure votes in the next elections; that Diaspora Armenians should not be barred from entering Armenia just because they criticize the government; that celibacy has nothing to do with Armenia’s national security; and that attacking Samvel Karapetyan and his property is both ungrateful and lawlesness.
Some of his geopolitical assessments—regarding the causes of the recent war, the so-called “Zangezur Corridor,” and relations with Russia—seem more controversial to me. One reason, perhaps, is that Kocharyan ruled Armenia for ten years, and it’s hard for his current judgments not to reflect an effort to justify the policies of his own tenure.
Read also
That said, today (unlike 2021), I believe that anyone who can remove Pashinyan from power should do so—even if the public doesn’t feel sympathy toward that person. If Kocharyan is the one who can accomplish that, so be it. But is he in such a position? I have my doubts. After all, we remember the outcome of the 2021 elections. Why didn’t Kocharyan succeed then? And what has changed in the opposition field over the past four years? It would have been useful, by the way, if the TV5 journalist had asked him that very question.
In this regard, I think Kocharyan made a tactical mistake by essentially claiming that his political team is among the most influential. If by that he means the “Armenia” bloc, then there are other, more solid political teams out there. Dashnaktsutyun (ARF) is certainly a political organization, but it cannot be regarded as Kocharyan’s personal team, considering the party’s history and internal structure.
Even if the “Armenia” bloc is the most influential, it’s unwise to say so out loud right now. Such statements only spark unnecessary disputes—“What about us?” others will say. On this note, let me recall the 1996 presidential election. As voting day approached, several opposition figures—including Paruyr Hayrikyan—withdrew their candidacies in favor of Vazgen Manukyan. Not because Manukyan was the brightest or most experienced candidate (Hayrikyan had more experience), but because it was clear Manukyan had the best chance of winning. For the same reason, although communist Sergey Badalyan and “Karabakh Committee” member Ashot Manucharyan did not withdraw, some of their supporters nonetheless voted for Manukyan, recognizing that he was the most realistic alternative to Ter-Petrosyan.
Of course, the situation today is very different from 30 years ago. Presidential and parliamentary elections are not the same, and the political system has evolved. Still, I believe the guiding principle for opposition strategy should be pragmatism.
The kind of pragmatism that Levon Ter-Petrosyan himself demonstrated during the 2021 elections—through his proposals and political positioning.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
