Tweet
CLOSE DISCUSSIONS DO NOT LEAD TO TRUST
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
12:15:03 - 19/03/2009
It is above all doubts that the second discussion on the financial
economic crisis convoked by the Armenian president Serge Sargsyan
and scheduled on March 20, will be represented by the governmental
propaganda machine as a dialogue, as it was done in case of the first
discussion on Nagorno-Karabakh issue. This circumstance is merely
a illusion, which has nothing in common with the political-social
dialogue of which necessity everyone states. The point is that what
is called a dialogue supposes publicity, but until now the public
does not have any idea of what the president and the party leaders
discussed last time on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.
We can be sure that no one will get aware of the details of the second
discussion concerning the financial economic crisis either. Perhaps,
this is what we need, as proceeding from the questions of national
security, our enemies must not know about the agreements of the
Armenian president and the party leaders. However, such kind of close
discussions are just impossible and they are out of any logic to be
considered a dialogue, sure if we admit that a dialogue should shape
an atmosphere of trust.
The problem is that the main component of the atmosphere of
confidence is the confidence of the public towards the situation
in the country. The authorities and the opposition may much trust
in each other, but we will be able to speak about a real atmosphere
of confidence only in case it will be deep-rooted among the public
too. What confidence among the public we speak about if such kind of
close discussion take place, even if they deal with topics of great
importance to the public. The public should be aware of the content
of the discussions in order to get filled up with confidence.
Moreover, the government and the parties participating in its meetings
have never mistrusted each other. For example, Khosrov Harutunyan or
Artahses Geghamyan has never reported to distrust the government; we
can state the same regarding any of those 50 parties participating in
the discussion on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Gurgen Arsenyan seems to
have lost his trust a little, stating that the government has broken
the unbreakable, but this is not a big problem for the government,
at least for now.
So, the presidential meeting may be considered a conference of
confidents which changes nothing for those who have no confidence. Of
course, the government may blame those political forces which
reject the invitations to these meetings of not contributing to trust
shaping. The forces who do not accept the invitations are right in case
these discussions are not public, visible to everyone. If they accept,
they will acquire the image of a political trader, nothing more.
Steps towards a dialogue, which contain potentials for confidence,
may be regarded those which are visible and perceivable for the public
from both form and content points of view. For example, our TV channels
got used to broadcasting in live every fall of the leaves. Why the
government does not want to hold any live discussion. This may be
called a real step towards the dialogue, or a real step towards
shaping public confidence.
In the opposite case, they turn out to gather, let alone that these
parties have nothing in common with the public, discuss something
and then demand confidence from the public, and if the public does
not believe them, they start complaining of the capriciousness of the
public, saying that the government and they do their best for them,
and the conspired public, on the contrary, does not believe them.
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
12:15:03 - 19/03/2009
It is above all doubts that the second discussion on the financial
economic crisis convoked by the Armenian president Serge Sargsyan
and scheduled on March 20, will be represented by the governmental
propaganda machine as a dialogue, as it was done in case of the first
discussion on Nagorno-Karabakh issue. This circumstance is merely
a illusion, which has nothing in common with the political-social
dialogue of which necessity everyone states. The point is that what
is called a dialogue supposes publicity, but until now the public
does not have any idea of what the president and the party leaders
discussed last time on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.
We can be sure that no one will get aware of the details of the second
discussion concerning the financial economic crisis either. Perhaps,
this is what we need, as proceeding from the questions of national
security, our enemies must not know about the agreements of the
Armenian president and the party leaders. However, such kind of close
discussions are just impossible and they are out of any logic to be
considered a dialogue, sure if we admit that a dialogue should shape
an atmosphere of trust.
The problem is that the main component of the atmosphere of
confidence is the confidence of the public towards the situation
in the country. The authorities and the opposition may much trust
in each other, but we will be able to speak about a real atmosphere
of confidence only in case it will be deep-rooted among the public
too. What confidence among the public we speak about if such kind of
close discussion take place, even if they deal with topics of great
importance to the public. The public should be aware of the content
of the discussions in order to get filled up with confidence.
Moreover, the government and the parties participating in its meetings
have never mistrusted each other. For example, Khosrov Harutunyan or
Artahses Geghamyan has never reported to distrust the government; we
can state the same regarding any of those 50 parties participating in
the discussion on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Gurgen Arsenyan seems to
have lost his trust a little, stating that the government has broken
the unbreakable, but this is not a big problem for the government,
at least for now.
So, the presidential meeting may be considered a conference of
confidents which changes nothing for those who have no confidence. Of
course, the government may blame those political forces which
reject the invitations to these meetings of not contributing to trust
shaping. The forces who do not accept the invitations are right in case
these discussions are not public, visible to everyone. If they accept,
they will acquire the image of a political trader, nothing more.
Steps towards a dialogue, which contain potentials for confidence,
may be regarded those which are visible and perceivable for the public
from both form and content points of view. For example, our TV channels
got used to broadcasting in live every fall of the leaves. Why the
government does not want to hold any live discussion. This may be
called a real step towards the dialogue, or a real step towards
shaping public confidence.
In the opposite case, they turn out to gather, let alone that these
parties have nothing in common with the public, discuss something
and then demand confidence from the public, and if the public does
not believe them, they start complaining of the capriciousness of the
public, saying that the government and they do their best for them,
and the conspired public, on the contrary, does not believe them.