Tweet
NEW FORCE, NEW OPPOSITION-2
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
14/01/10
Any criticism of the Armenian National Congress is viewed within the
supporters of the HAK as an order of the authorities or, at least,
attempts to bring grist to the mill of the government. And in many
cases such a perception has an objective basis. The point is that
the Congress today is the only viable opposition force today. There
is, of course, the unification of political forces opposed to the
Armenian-Turkish protocols, but the public has not yet been brought
to their position on the Armenian reality in a broader context. That
is, the union had not yet told the society, what would happen if the
power acts accordingly to their requirements in the Armenian-Turkish
relations. What then will the ARF and the others do?
In the case of the Armenian National Congress the situation seems to be
the opposite. And if the "ARF and his comrades' are opposition mainly
in relation to the Armenian-Turkish relations, the HAK is opposed
to the authorities in internal matters, having almost identical
stances with the government in connection with the Armenian-Turkish
relations. The question is where the starting point is. And hardly
anyone would argue that the starting point is the questions of foreign
policy because all starts inside the country, with the principles of
forming government, the system of government.
If these principles are not well, sooner or later the foreign policy
will be "infected" too. And in terms of the principles of forming
power, the HAK is the only viable opposition, so the criticism
addressed to it sounds like criticism of the only oppositional force
which somehow holds an effective struggle against the system and
those who serve it.
Consequently, the criticism of the Congress turns out to be an
unwitting or deliberate support of the governmental system. The
accusations of the HAK supporters to those who criticize the Congress
seem to have this logic. But is this "iron" logic and is the HAK above
all criticism as the only opposition? No, of course, it is not. First,
the structure which is fighting for democracy and freedom, but does
not accept criticism in its address devalues its struggle. There
is another side of the issue. Maybe the Congress which accuses its
critics is in collusion with the authorities thus it does not allow
a more efficient and viable force to be born.
Although in practice they should be guided by different logic - the
logic of work. And in this sense, the Armenian National Congress,
has a significant advantage because, even with mistakes and omissions,
the Congress, nevertheless, does some work in the face of thousands of
its activists, especially young people who bravely stand up against
the regime, who are not even afraid of physical violence which they
are periodically subjected. To date, other examples of the struggle
against the current regime in Armenia are not known. While this does
not mean that this struggle should occur precisely in such methods -
a natural resistance to the regime. There are many other forms of
struggle involving different periods of 'fruiting'. But still, the
only effective way to combat today is the one used by the Armenian
National Congress.
But does Congress exist only for this? Who defines the boundaries of
the mission in general and the importance of the HAK? Here, there is
much to discuss and to criticize. The power of the Congress may also
consist in the fact that defining the steps and discussing methods of
struggle will involve not only the Congress members. The society forms
its stances by actions rather than by words. And the recent history of
the Congress is the best proof of that. If it was only in propaganda,
Levon Ter-Petrosyan's rating would not exceed 5%. But work has changed
the situation. Consequently, the question is not the criticism sounding
to the Congress. And the new force should not look for a place under
the sun criticizing the Congress, it must win a place by its work,
of course, if it is capable of that.
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
14/01/10
Any criticism of the Armenian National Congress is viewed within the
supporters of the HAK as an order of the authorities or, at least,
attempts to bring grist to the mill of the government. And in many
cases such a perception has an objective basis. The point is that
the Congress today is the only viable opposition force today. There
is, of course, the unification of political forces opposed to the
Armenian-Turkish protocols, but the public has not yet been brought
to their position on the Armenian reality in a broader context. That
is, the union had not yet told the society, what would happen if the
power acts accordingly to their requirements in the Armenian-Turkish
relations. What then will the ARF and the others do?
In the case of the Armenian National Congress the situation seems to be
the opposite. And if the "ARF and his comrades' are opposition mainly
in relation to the Armenian-Turkish relations, the HAK is opposed
to the authorities in internal matters, having almost identical
stances with the government in connection with the Armenian-Turkish
relations. The question is where the starting point is. And hardly
anyone would argue that the starting point is the questions of foreign
policy because all starts inside the country, with the principles of
forming government, the system of government.
If these principles are not well, sooner or later the foreign policy
will be "infected" too. And in terms of the principles of forming
power, the HAK is the only viable opposition, so the criticism
addressed to it sounds like criticism of the only oppositional force
which somehow holds an effective struggle against the system and
those who serve it.
Consequently, the criticism of the Congress turns out to be an
unwitting or deliberate support of the governmental system. The
accusations of the HAK supporters to those who criticize the Congress
seem to have this logic. But is this "iron" logic and is the HAK above
all criticism as the only opposition? No, of course, it is not. First,
the structure which is fighting for democracy and freedom, but does
not accept criticism in its address devalues its struggle. There
is another side of the issue. Maybe the Congress which accuses its
critics is in collusion with the authorities thus it does not allow
a more efficient and viable force to be born.
Although in practice they should be guided by different logic - the
logic of work. And in this sense, the Armenian National Congress,
has a significant advantage because, even with mistakes and omissions,
the Congress, nevertheless, does some work in the face of thousands of
its activists, especially young people who bravely stand up against
the regime, who are not even afraid of physical violence which they
are periodically subjected. To date, other examples of the struggle
against the current regime in Armenia are not known. While this does
not mean that this struggle should occur precisely in such methods -
a natural resistance to the regime. There are many other forms of
struggle involving different periods of 'fruiting'. But still, the
only effective way to combat today is the one used by the Armenian
National Congress.
But does Congress exist only for this? Who defines the boundaries of
the mission in general and the importance of the HAK? Here, there is
much to discuss and to criticize. The power of the Congress may also
consist in the fact that defining the steps and discussing methods of
struggle will involve not only the Congress members. The society forms
its stances by actions rather than by words. And the recent history of
the Congress is the best proof of that. If it was only in propaganda,
Levon Ter-Petrosyan's rating would not exceed 5%. But work has changed
the situation. Consequently, the question is not the criticism sounding
to the Congress. And the new force should not look for a place under
the sun criticizing the Congress, it must win a place by its work,
of course, if it is capable of that.