Tweet
HELLO TO ARMS
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
14:47:26 - 04/02/2009
It is really difficult to understand why the government decided to
give arms to court ushers. The minister of justice Gevorg Danielyan
confesses that there was not such a precedent that would force the
government to give arms to ushers, for them to defend the courts from
assaults. In other words, no one has ever made an armed assault against
the court to make the government decide that in order to prevent such
assaults in future they should arm court ushers. But in this case a
question occurs: why the government announces such an intention and
presents a bill to the National Assembly.
Moreover, the fact that the minister representing the government says
that it is a step for the future causes deep worry. The point is
that if there is no precedent which would force to make a decision
on arming court ushers, but they do it for the future, this means
that the government is planning such actions connected with a court
process or the behavior of the court in general, which from the point
of view of the government will really force some groups of people or
the society to make an armed assault against the court.
It is difficult to have another opinion about the decision of the
government. Otherwise why should the government arm court ushers for
the future? The opinions voiced during the parliamentary discussions
that the government just needs another law enforcement body do not
seem grounded. The problem is that the government does not need law
enforcement bodies now, in other words there is no need to increase
the number of such bodies. The government does not need armed people
today and probably will not need them tomorrow.
On the other hand, it is not the first time that some intention of
the government lacks logic or the government can not clarify to the
public the basis of its intentions. There is also the fact that in
this situation of almost zero legitimacy any intention and step of
the government, even if it is honest and without a hidden intention,
nevertheless causes doubt among the public. And this is the most
problematic and dangerous matter in the case of an illegitimate
government. The actions, even the good ones, of an illegitimate
government may cause negative expectations among the public. In other
words, it is very difficult for an illegitimate government to do even
good things.
Consequently, if the arming of court ushers is just an intention of
the government, which does not have any hidden aim, it causes the
negative response of the public, moreover if the point is about
arming a group. In that situation the government should probably
avoid such decisions. The point is that in the present situation when
in the country the economic crisis adds to the political one, the
government should try not to make such decisions which would not be
clear or would cause doubt among the public, as this will make lack of
confidence in the government deeper and deeper, though it seems that
there is no place to go deeper any more. And in this case it will be
just impossible for the government to carry out an anti-crisis policy,
if the government intends to follow such a policy at all.
Is it so urgent and important to arm court ushers that the government
lacking public confidence is ready to have such a conflict with the
public, especially in such a situation like the present one? May be
the government does not even have an anti-crisis policy and that is
why the government does not bother about giving additional reason
for lack of confidence.
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
14:47:26 - 04/02/2009
It is really difficult to understand why the government decided to
give arms to court ushers. The minister of justice Gevorg Danielyan
confesses that there was not such a precedent that would force the
government to give arms to ushers, for them to defend the courts from
assaults. In other words, no one has ever made an armed assault against
the court to make the government decide that in order to prevent such
assaults in future they should arm court ushers. But in this case a
question occurs: why the government announces such an intention and
presents a bill to the National Assembly.
Moreover, the fact that the minister representing the government says
that it is a step for the future causes deep worry. The point is
that if there is no precedent which would force to make a decision
on arming court ushers, but they do it for the future, this means
that the government is planning such actions connected with a court
process or the behavior of the court in general, which from the point
of view of the government will really force some groups of people or
the society to make an armed assault against the court.
It is difficult to have another opinion about the decision of the
government. Otherwise why should the government arm court ushers for
the future? The opinions voiced during the parliamentary discussions
that the government just needs another law enforcement body do not
seem grounded. The problem is that the government does not need law
enforcement bodies now, in other words there is no need to increase
the number of such bodies. The government does not need armed people
today and probably will not need them tomorrow.
On the other hand, it is not the first time that some intention of
the government lacks logic or the government can not clarify to the
public the basis of its intentions. There is also the fact that in
this situation of almost zero legitimacy any intention and step of
the government, even if it is honest and without a hidden intention,
nevertheless causes doubt among the public. And this is the most
problematic and dangerous matter in the case of an illegitimate
government. The actions, even the good ones, of an illegitimate
government may cause negative expectations among the public. In other
words, it is very difficult for an illegitimate government to do even
good things.
Consequently, if the arming of court ushers is just an intention of
the government, which does not have any hidden aim, it causes the
negative response of the public, moreover if the point is about
arming a group. In that situation the government should probably
avoid such decisions. The point is that in the present situation when
in the country the economic crisis adds to the political one, the
government should try not to make such decisions which would not be
clear or would cause doubt among the public, as this will make lack of
confidence in the government deeper and deeper, though it seems that
there is no place to go deeper any more. And in this case it will be
just impossible for the government to carry out an anti-crisis policy,
if the government intends to follow such a policy at all.
Is it so urgent and important to arm court ushers that the government
lacking public confidence is ready to have such a conflict with the
public, especially in such a situation like the present one? May be
the government does not even have an anti-crisis policy and that is
why the government does not bother about giving additional reason
for lack of confidence.