Tweet
PEOPLE OF KARABAKH SHOULD NOT BE CONSCIOUSLY PUSHED TO MAKE A MISTAKE
James Hakobyan
Lragir.am
12:02:43 - 02/12/2008
One can often hear from almost all the political forces to say
regarding the settlement of the Karabakh conflict that they are ready
to accept any settlement that the people of Karabakh will accept. This
statement which seems quite logical at first sight is in reality a
classic pilatism through which the political forces are trying to avoid
responsibility for the Karabakh conflict. It seems that the political
force should agree with the public opinion, evaluation. In this case,
however, the question occurs what the political forces, parties or
alliance are for. After all, a political force which has some form of
organization is a union of people who think likewise. In other words,
those who think likewise have their definite and principal approaches
towards issues which have key importance to the public.
If there is no such definite, principal approach, the question occurs
what the union of people who think likewise is for.
Consequently, if a political force is going to accept any decision
of the people of Karabakh, what is the purpose of existence of
that force? There is a state, and there is a government, and that
government is quite enough to approve the decision of the people of
Karabakh, to seal that decision. The approval of no other party or
political organization of other framewo rk seems necessary if that
approval is going to be there in any case. The people of Karabakh
may make a mistake, after all they count about 100 to 150 thousand,
who are officially said to live in an absolutely closed system, do
not get full and comprehensive information, live with an acute sense
of security which sometimes resembles fear and therefore are devoid of
the possibility of an adequate assessment of the reality. To determine
the solution of such an important national issue by the will of the
public which has appeared in such extreme conditions means to push that
public consciously to make a mistake. If I am a political force, if I
have my distinct approach towards strategic issues, if I have my strong
stance, if this stance is clearly set down and grounded by arguments,
how can I agree to just any decision on the settlement of the issue?
I do not mean that one should attack the people of Karabakh or
demand the resignation of the people of Karabakh in case the people
of Karabakh agree to a decision which one does not accept. But the
marginality of accepting any decision is not honor for any political
force, regardless the platform of the political sphere that force is
on. Moreover, political technology is for having an alternative to any
decision because we know there are a number of technologies to get a
desired opinion of the public. Therefore, there are political forces
to counterbalance the mechanisms of manipulation, in other words,
struggle against any political monopoly that may be established on
the circumstance of incontestability of the "decision of people".
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
James Hakobyan
Lragir.am
12:02:43 - 02/12/2008
One can often hear from almost all the political forces to say
regarding the settlement of the Karabakh conflict that they are ready
to accept any settlement that the people of Karabakh will accept. This
statement which seems quite logical at first sight is in reality a
classic pilatism through which the political forces are trying to avoid
responsibility for the Karabakh conflict. It seems that the political
force should agree with the public opinion, evaluation. In this case,
however, the question occurs what the political forces, parties or
alliance are for. After all, a political force which has some form of
organization is a union of people who think likewise. In other words,
those who think likewise have their definite and principal approaches
towards issues which have key importance to the public.
If there is no such definite, principal approach, the question occurs
what the union of people who think likewise is for.
Consequently, if a political force is going to accept any decision
of the people of Karabakh, what is the purpose of existence of
that force? There is a state, and there is a government, and that
government is quite enough to approve the decision of the people of
Karabakh, to seal that decision. The approval of no other party or
political organization of other framewo rk seems necessary if that
approval is going to be there in any case. The people of Karabakh
may make a mistake, after all they count about 100 to 150 thousand,
who are officially said to live in an absolutely closed system, do
not get full and comprehensive information, live with an acute sense
of security which sometimes resembles fear and therefore are devoid of
the possibility of an adequate assessment of the reality. To determine
the solution of such an important national issue by the will of the
public which has appeared in such extreme conditions means to push that
public consciously to make a mistake. If I am a political force, if I
have my distinct approach towards strategic issues, if I have my strong
stance, if this stance is clearly set down and grounded by arguments,
how can I agree to just any decision on the settlement of the issue?
I do not mean that one should attack the people of Karabakh or
demand the resignation of the people of Karabakh in case the people
of Karabakh agree to a decision which one does not accept. But the
marginality of accepting any decision is not honor for any political
force, regardless the platform of the political sphere that force is
on. Moreover, political technology is for having an alternative to any
decision because we know there are a number of technologies to get a
desired opinion of the public. Therefore, there are political forces
to counterbalance the mechanisms of manipulation, in other words,
struggle against any political monopoly that may be established on
the circumstance of incontestability of the "decision of people".
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress