Tweet
SOCIETY NEEDS A DIALOGUE
ARMEN TSATOURYAN
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on June 13, 2008
Armenia
While L. Ter-Petrosyan seeks to maintain the tension
In the post-electoral period, especially during the past 2-3 months,
our domestic policy agenda has developed into a long series of
proposals and formats which are introduced in a consistent manner and
rejected quite speedily.
The events develop in the following succession: the regular
idea-proposal on a dialogue between the authorities and the opposition
is advanced, some discussions begin, then some of the political figures
and members of society become enthusiastic while others express
moderate optimism and finally, the pan-national movement, on behalf of
L. Ter-Petrosyan, publicizes its regular rejection. And everything
returns to the same starting point.
Any attempt, proposal or format aimed at relaxing the tension is
estimated by the self-declared `supreme body' as an imitation of a
dialogue which immediately loses its sense without even starting.
Such was actually the fate of the necessary and useful idea of
establishing a Public Chamber. Judging by all, the same prospect is in
store for the proposal aimed at setting up an interim parliamentary
committee conducting a comprehensive investigation of the March 1-2
events.
A question arises as to what causes this particular part of the
opposition to demonstrate such self-confident persistence when the
authorities do not absolutely isolate them from the political
processes. On the contrary, the opposition is currently free to appear
on the Public TV Channel and voice its opinion. Let alone the press,
which grants the pro-opposition figures unlimited opportunities for
conducting advocacy.
In the meantime, communications, meetings and discussions are
periodically organized between society on the one hand and the
representatives of the Government on the other. Beginning an active
dialogue with the outstanding scholars, artists, public and political
figures, the top figures of the Government are seeking optimal ways
towards the solution of the complex problems faced by the country. All
this testifies to the fact that they are ready for a dialogue both with
the opposition and society.
Along with increasing the publicity of the government's activities, the
instructive posture of the opposition and its leader creates an obvious
misbalance on the political arena. There appeared a person suffering
from the complex of faultlessness and, like the `father of the
nations', knows everything in advance; therefore, he decides on his own
that such initiative only brings harm to the country. With the help of
several official and non-official evaders, Ter-Petrosyan currently
advances the idea that the future dialogue may only be devoted to the
selection of the method of ceding power.
What causes such intolerance and obvious maximalism when the
international community and the observers who followed the recent
elections formulated a different kind of task for initiating a dialogue
between the authorities and the opposition? They hold the viewpoint
that the presidential candidate who received 21 percent of votes should
recognize the legitimacy of the authorities, and the authorities, in
turn, are obliged to investigate the March 1-2 events, release the
individuals detained for their political views etc.
It may seem to some people that the in-depth reason of such arrogant
behavior is the expectation of a new wave of the `pan-national
movement', prior to which the opposition is speaking in the language of
ultimatums. However, June 20 will arrive, and it will become obvious
that the pro-Ter-Petrosyan team just wanted to extend its `mission' in
the capacity of the opposition leader. And this is all.
As a matter of fact, all the attempts of the authorities towards
improving the situation and extending the rights of the opposition
receive a sharp counteraction by Ter-Petrosyan's team for a very simple
reason. The essence of the big political bluff skillfully orchestrated
by Ter-Petrosyan and his political team was to bring the authorities
face to face with unsolvable challenges by way of escalating the
political tension to its zenith rather than seize power and gain an
influential position in the country's political life. Having achieved
their objective, i.e. splitting and polarizing the political arena,
Ter-Petrosyan and his political team are pursing one goal: to assert
the fact of hostility and polarization and on their basis, bring
Armenia face to face with the continuing pressure and increased
internal instability.
Therefore, if there starts a serious political dialogue, the March 1-2
events are investigated, a Public Chamber is set up etc., Ter-Petrosyan
and his team will be deprived of the opportunity of realizing their
objectives dictated by external impulses and will find themselves in
the status of people who are `politically unemployed'.
And because some individuals obviously need `significant instabilities'
while our country and people are in need of a peaceful and prosperous
life, the authorities should direct their attempts at initiating a
dialogue with the public vs. the opposition and involve larger and
larger groups of society in the process.
ARMEN TSATOURYAN
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on June 13, 2008
Armenia
While L. Ter-Petrosyan seeks to maintain the tension
In the post-electoral period, especially during the past 2-3 months,
our domestic policy agenda has developed into a long series of
proposals and formats which are introduced in a consistent manner and
rejected quite speedily.
The events develop in the following succession: the regular
idea-proposal on a dialogue between the authorities and the opposition
is advanced, some discussions begin, then some of the political figures
and members of society become enthusiastic while others express
moderate optimism and finally, the pan-national movement, on behalf of
L. Ter-Petrosyan, publicizes its regular rejection. And everything
returns to the same starting point.
Any attempt, proposal or format aimed at relaxing the tension is
estimated by the self-declared `supreme body' as an imitation of a
dialogue which immediately loses its sense without even starting.
Such was actually the fate of the necessary and useful idea of
establishing a Public Chamber. Judging by all, the same prospect is in
store for the proposal aimed at setting up an interim parliamentary
committee conducting a comprehensive investigation of the March 1-2
events.
A question arises as to what causes this particular part of the
opposition to demonstrate such self-confident persistence when the
authorities do not absolutely isolate them from the political
processes. On the contrary, the opposition is currently free to appear
on the Public TV Channel and voice its opinion. Let alone the press,
which grants the pro-opposition figures unlimited opportunities for
conducting advocacy.
In the meantime, communications, meetings and discussions are
periodically organized between society on the one hand and the
representatives of the Government on the other. Beginning an active
dialogue with the outstanding scholars, artists, public and political
figures, the top figures of the Government are seeking optimal ways
towards the solution of the complex problems faced by the country. All
this testifies to the fact that they are ready for a dialogue both with
the opposition and society.
Along with increasing the publicity of the government's activities, the
instructive posture of the opposition and its leader creates an obvious
misbalance on the political arena. There appeared a person suffering
from the complex of faultlessness and, like the `father of the
nations', knows everything in advance; therefore, he decides on his own
that such initiative only brings harm to the country. With the help of
several official and non-official evaders, Ter-Petrosyan currently
advances the idea that the future dialogue may only be devoted to the
selection of the method of ceding power.
What causes such intolerance and obvious maximalism when the
international community and the observers who followed the recent
elections formulated a different kind of task for initiating a dialogue
between the authorities and the opposition? They hold the viewpoint
that the presidential candidate who received 21 percent of votes should
recognize the legitimacy of the authorities, and the authorities, in
turn, are obliged to investigate the March 1-2 events, release the
individuals detained for their political views etc.
It may seem to some people that the in-depth reason of such arrogant
behavior is the expectation of a new wave of the `pan-national
movement', prior to which the opposition is speaking in the language of
ultimatums. However, June 20 will arrive, and it will become obvious
that the pro-Ter-Petrosyan team just wanted to extend its `mission' in
the capacity of the opposition leader. And this is all.
As a matter of fact, all the attempts of the authorities towards
improving the situation and extending the rights of the opposition
receive a sharp counteraction by Ter-Petrosyan's team for a very simple
reason. The essence of the big political bluff skillfully orchestrated
by Ter-Petrosyan and his political team was to bring the authorities
face to face with unsolvable challenges by way of escalating the
political tension to its zenith rather than seize power and gain an
influential position in the country's political life. Having achieved
their objective, i.e. splitting and polarizing the political arena,
Ter-Petrosyan and his political team are pursing one goal: to assert
the fact of hostility and polarization and on their basis, bring
Armenia face to face with the continuing pressure and increased
internal instability.
Therefore, if there starts a serious political dialogue, the March 1-2
events are investigated, a Public Chamber is set up etc., Ter-Petrosyan
and his team will be deprived of the opportunity of realizing their
objectives dictated by external impulses and will find themselves in
the status of people who are `politically unemployed'.
And because some individuals obviously need `significant instabilities'
while our country and people are in need of a peaceful and prosperous
life, the authorities should direct their attempts at initiating a
dialogue with the public vs. the opposition and involve larger and
larger groups of society in the process.