Tweet
Will revolutionary fire go out in 2005?
By Karine Mangasarian
Yerkir/arm
January 14, 2005
The Georgian rose revolution of 2003 impacted Armenia in the way of
encouraging the opposition to overthrow the power. The latter did not
take place. The Ukrainian revolution of 2004 also provoked enthusiasm
with the Armenian opposition. However, why was the authority change
possible in Georgia and Ukraine, but not in Armenia?
The next logical question would be about the possible political
developments in 2005 both in the parliament, and outside. Chairman of
the `Republic' party council (member of the `Justice' bloc) Albert
Bazeyan does not link the foreign revolutions with the Armenian
reality. Talking about the prospects for 2005, Bazeyan said: `I find
possible new political developments, including massive events, since
the reasons for a power shift are still there. Peoplemust fight for
the power, which is taken away from people.' Independent MP Manuk
Gasparian mentions Western and namely US influence, as prevailing over
the revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine.
He also said: `The two sons of Soros, Georgia and Ukraine can be added
by new post-Soviet countries. I do not exclude Armenia, Azerbaijan or
Moldova. I find likely that Armenia may be influenced upon by pressure
through the Karabagh issue.' He also said that the situation had
better not change rather than be changed by foreigners. However, he
finds that there is a 50-60 per cent chance for a national overthrow
of the power.
Leader of the Modernized Communist Party Yura Manukyan believes there
is not social need for a revolution in Armenia today and people `are
too smart to follow a couple of adventurers who want to revolt.'
ARF faction leader Levon Mkrtchian, as usual, is against forecasting.
However, he expects more active foreign political developments around
Karabagh and Armenian-Turkish border. He said: `We must establish
qualitatively new relationships with foreign organizations and
institutions and this will have a considerable influence.
I believe the internal situation will mainly remain the same, although
foreign developments may tell upon it. I do not think that examples of
foreign countries can be so easily implemented in the Armenian
reality. In this respect, I do not believe the Georgian or Ukrainian
case studies may work out in Armenia.'
By Karine Mangasarian
Yerkir/arm
January 14, 2005
The Georgian rose revolution of 2003 impacted Armenia in the way of
encouraging the opposition to overthrow the power. The latter did not
take place. The Ukrainian revolution of 2004 also provoked enthusiasm
with the Armenian opposition. However, why was the authority change
possible in Georgia and Ukraine, but not in Armenia?
The next logical question would be about the possible political
developments in 2005 both in the parliament, and outside. Chairman of
the `Republic' party council (member of the `Justice' bloc) Albert
Bazeyan does not link the foreign revolutions with the Armenian
reality. Talking about the prospects for 2005, Bazeyan said: `I find
possible new political developments, including massive events, since
the reasons for a power shift are still there. Peoplemust fight for
the power, which is taken away from people.' Independent MP Manuk
Gasparian mentions Western and namely US influence, as prevailing over
the revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine.
He also said: `The two sons of Soros, Georgia and Ukraine can be added
by new post-Soviet countries. I do not exclude Armenia, Azerbaijan or
Moldova. I find likely that Armenia may be influenced upon by pressure
through the Karabagh issue.' He also said that the situation had
better not change rather than be changed by foreigners. However, he
finds that there is a 50-60 per cent chance for a national overthrow
of the power.
Leader of the Modernized Communist Party Yura Manukyan believes there
is not social need for a revolution in Armenia today and people `are
too smart to follow a couple of adventurers who want to revolt.'
ARF faction leader Levon Mkrtchian, as usual, is against forecasting.
However, he expects more active foreign political developments around
Karabagh and Armenian-Turkish border. He said: `We must establish
qualitatively new relationships with foreign organizations and
institutions and this will have a considerable influence.
I believe the internal situation will mainly remain the same, although
foreign developments may tell upon it. I do not think that examples of
foreign countries can be so easily implemented in the Armenian
reality. In this respect, I do not believe the Georgian or Ukrainian
case studies may work out in Armenia.'