Tweet
ARF WAS EXPECTED LONG AGO
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview-lrahos1 5537.html
13:27:00 - 14/10/2009
Interview with the ethnographer Hranush Kharatyan
After the Yerevan Mayor election, you said that we had a formed
opposition, if not ideologically but from the point of system of
administration and course of actions the HAK had a clear approach. Do
you think the opposition has the same mechanisms today?
It is a difficult but a very good question. I think after the Mayor
election, active developments took place in our country mainly
in the agenda of the foreign policy and maybe my assessment is a
little quick but I think the opposition is being re-formed. When
saying opposition after the Yerevan Mayor election I meant only
the opposition formed during the presidential election which starts
firming in our political field. To tell the truth, after the Armenian
and Turkish protocols appeared, the oppositional field is re-forming:
first the Dashnaktsutyun (more clearly now) announced itself an
oppositional political force. I think after they laid down their
governmental mandates they became opposition not only in the context
of the Armenian and Turkish relations, but also in relation to the
policy carried out inside the country, a thing which was expected
from the Dashnaktsutyun long ago.
In their ideas, there are oppositional responds to the general social
state of the country and general policy though they are not proposing
solutions which is why it is difficult for me to say which their
political opposition besides refusing the current policy is. This is
what makes the formation of an oppositional field difficult. We are
always split not counting the unity of ten political forces which
signed under one document. It would be very interesting for me if
the Bargavach Hayastan or the OYP also signed. For example, have you
ever heard any clear opinion of the OYP on the Armenian and Turkish
protocols? I think they only wish to be a part of the government
and they are afraid of having some other opinion in this connection
because it will separate them from the whole.
If you point the oppositional forces, will the HAK be the first
among them?
I again consider that the only force who is against the whole
government is the Armenian National Congress. I think they would
not sign not because they do not want to enter in alliance with home
forces but because their stances partially coincide with the Armenian
and Turkish protocols. Though I heard Aram Manukyan's speech where
he expressed serious concern which I consider his personal one and
not the HAK.
I think if this initiative of ten forces about the Armenian-Turkish
protocols enhances and becomes a movement, only then the quality of the
Armenian political opposition and its center - the HAK, will change.
But the HAK and its supporters do not believe Dashnaktsutyun's being
opposition in particular they consider ridiculous the ARF demand on
foreign minister's resignation.
I think there are a number of reasons because of which they retain the
Dashnaktsutyun such one. I do not think our society judges about the
Dashnaktsutyun only by its actions after Armenia's independence. The
attitude of our public towards the ARF is determined by the behavior
towards them during the Soviet period. I think, in the recent period,
some material was released which deal with the period of the first
republic and the ambiguous assessments to ARF behavior in that
period. There are different sources creating the ARF image which are
not always positive.
You remembered almost all the oppositional forces except the Heritage.
I think the Heritage's work in the National Assembly was effective. The
positive attitude towards them is preserved by their work in the
parliament. Of course, I am very sad about the events within the
party. This phenomenon is sorrowful but at the same time, I think they
have already shown their positive work and are still showing. I hope,
in the nearest future all their problems will be solved.
After the March 1, you stated that the government had the problem to
restore the public's trust. In your opinion, does the HAK not have
the same problem now?
In general, I think that the HAK had those problems just from the
beginning. I think a tangible number of people who attended the
HAK rallies and called Levon Ter-Petrosyan president did not trust
him and those surrounding him. Moreover, people who did not go to
rallies and followed those events had very different approaches. I
have never believed and I do not believe now either that the forces
gathered around Levon Ter-Petrosyan have unequivocal perception
among the public. Of course, they are perceived as oppositional
forces but there were and there are serious worries on their future
government. One of the reasons was that people who were against Serge
Sargsyan voted for Levon Ter-Petrosyan and those against Ter-Petrosyan
voted for Sargsyan. Today, the HAK opinion in connection with the
Armenian-Turkish protocols enhances that distrust.
Did we have changes of government after the independence? Or they
were replacements and now if the HAK comes to power will we not have
the same image?
I think they were different people, but I do not think their
governments differed much from each other. But since the greater
part of our society votes for persons, so they have always voted for
a certain person. It is difficult to say whether it was a change of
government or not.
Levon Ter-Petrosyan period may be described as incapability plus
immorality, Kocharyan's period as capability plus immorality.
And what about the third?
I am afraid of giving any quality assessment to the third one. I
consider a tangible number of Serge Sargsyan's latest decisions very
positive. It is another question how the process of fulfillment of
decisions is. To tell the truth, I give assessments through researches,
I have no research in this period so I can make only visual judgments
and I am afraid they will not be much grounded.
The public always imposes demands to the government; can the public
impose demands to the opposition too?
In Armenia, no it cannot. But I will correct myself; why not? The
public may demand from the opposition clear attitude at least towards
essential questions to decide its hopes connected with that opposition
and if the opposition may say that the government is different, go
to change them so the opposition loses its expectations of public hope.
Does the present opposition bear this responsibility?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In other words, the opposition is
acceptable only for a part of the public and the same goes for the
government. I think each person who follows a certain group waits
for its answer, opinion around different issues.
The ARF is said to want to take the place of the HAK. Will it succeed?
It would be righter to answer this question if I have already made my
research. But saying my subjective opinion, I think the supporters of
the HAK and the ARF are completely different people with different
expectations, taste, opinions. I do not think the Dashnaktsutyun
may make a step for a part of the HAK supporters to join them. The
Dashnaktsutyun is perceived by our society as a defender of the Hay
Dat, defender of the past.
To whom are your ideas closer?
I have a very modest wish. Each political force may be the bearer
of my modest wish. I want to have moral government who cares for
rights and moral values but so far, I have not seen any political
force which would show it has those values.
Interview by SIRANUYSH PAPYAN
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview-lrahos1 5537.html
13:27:00 - 14/10/2009
Interview with the ethnographer Hranush Kharatyan
After the Yerevan Mayor election, you said that we had a formed
opposition, if not ideologically but from the point of system of
administration and course of actions the HAK had a clear approach. Do
you think the opposition has the same mechanisms today?
It is a difficult but a very good question. I think after the Mayor
election, active developments took place in our country mainly
in the agenda of the foreign policy and maybe my assessment is a
little quick but I think the opposition is being re-formed. When
saying opposition after the Yerevan Mayor election I meant only
the opposition formed during the presidential election which starts
firming in our political field. To tell the truth, after the Armenian
and Turkish protocols appeared, the oppositional field is re-forming:
first the Dashnaktsutyun (more clearly now) announced itself an
oppositional political force. I think after they laid down their
governmental mandates they became opposition not only in the context
of the Armenian and Turkish relations, but also in relation to the
policy carried out inside the country, a thing which was expected
from the Dashnaktsutyun long ago.
In their ideas, there are oppositional responds to the general social
state of the country and general policy though they are not proposing
solutions which is why it is difficult for me to say which their
political opposition besides refusing the current policy is. This is
what makes the formation of an oppositional field difficult. We are
always split not counting the unity of ten political forces which
signed under one document. It would be very interesting for me if
the Bargavach Hayastan or the OYP also signed. For example, have you
ever heard any clear opinion of the OYP on the Armenian and Turkish
protocols? I think they only wish to be a part of the government
and they are afraid of having some other opinion in this connection
because it will separate them from the whole.
If you point the oppositional forces, will the HAK be the first
among them?
I again consider that the only force who is against the whole
government is the Armenian National Congress. I think they would
not sign not because they do not want to enter in alliance with home
forces but because their stances partially coincide with the Armenian
and Turkish protocols. Though I heard Aram Manukyan's speech where
he expressed serious concern which I consider his personal one and
not the HAK.
I think if this initiative of ten forces about the Armenian-Turkish
protocols enhances and becomes a movement, only then the quality of the
Armenian political opposition and its center - the HAK, will change.
But the HAK and its supporters do not believe Dashnaktsutyun's being
opposition in particular they consider ridiculous the ARF demand on
foreign minister's resignation.
I think there are a number of reasons because of which they retain the
Dashnaktsutyun such one. I do not think our society judges about the
Dashnaktsutyun only by its actions after Armenia's independence. The
attitude of our public towards the ARF is determined by the behavior
towards them during the Soviet period. I think, in the recent period,
some material was released which deal with the period of the first
republic and the ambiguous assessments to ARF behavior in that
period. There are different sources creating the ARF image which are
not always positive.
You remembered almost all the oppositional forces except the Heritage.
I think the Heritage's work in the National Assembly was effective. The
positive attitude towards them is preserved by their work in the
parliament. Of course, I am very sad about the events within the
party. This phenomenon is sorrowful but at the same time, I think they
have already shown their positive work and are still showing. I hope,
in the nearest future all their problems will be solved.
After the March 1, you stated that the government had the problem to
restore the public's trust. In your opinion, does the HAK not have
the same problem now?
In general, I think that the HAK had those problems just from the
beginning. I think a tangible number of people who attended the
HAK rallies and called Levon Ter-Petrosyan president did not trust
him and those surrounding him. Moreover, people who did not go to
rallies and followed those events had very different approaches. I
have never believed and I do not believe now either that the forces
gathered around Levon Ter-Petrosyan have unequivocal perception
among the public. Of course, they are perceived as oppositional
forces but there were and there are serious worries on their future
government. One of the reasons was that people who were against Serge
Sargsyan voted for Levon Ter-Petrosyan and those against Ter-Petrosyan
voted for Sargsyan. Today, the HAK opinion in connection with the
Armenian-Turkish protocols enhances that distrust.
Did we have changes of government after the independence? Or they
were replacements and now if the HAK comes to power will we not have
the same image?
I think they were different people, but I do not think their
governments differed much from each other. But since the greater
part of our society votes for persons, so they have always voted for
a certain person. It is difficult to say whether it was a change of
government or not.
Levon Ter-Petrosyan period may be described as incapability plus
immorality, Kocharyan's period as capability plus immorality.
And what about the third?
I am afraid of giving any quality assessment to the third one. I
consider a tangible number of Serge Sargsyan's latest decisions very
positive. It is another question how the process of fulfillment of
decisions is. To tell the truth, I give assessments through researches,
I have no research in this period so I can make only visual judgments
and I am afraid they will not be much grounded.
The public always imposes demands to the government; can the public
impose demands to the opposition too?
In Armenia, no it cannot. But I will correct myself; why not? The
public may demand from the opposition clear attitude at least towards
essential questions to decide its hopes connected with that opposition
and if the opposition may say that the government is different, go
to change them so the opposition loses its expectations of public hope.
Does the present opposition bear this responsibility?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In other words, the opposition is
acceptable only for a part of the public and the same goes for the
government. I think each person who follows a certain group waits
for its answer, opinion around different issues.
The ARF is said to want to take the place of the HAK. Will it succeed?
It would be righter to answer this question if I have already made my
research. But saying my subjective opinion, I think the supporters of
the HAK and the ARF are completely different people with different
expectations, taste, opinions. I do not think the Dashnaktsutyun
may make a step for a part of the HAK supporters to join them. The
Dashnaktsutyun is perceived by our society as a defender of the Hay
Dat, defender of the past.
To whom are your ideas closer?
I have a very modest wish. Each political force may be the bearer
of my modest wish. I want to have moral government who cares for
rights and moral values but so far, I have not seen any political
force which would show it has those values.
Interview by SIRANUYSH PAPYAN
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress