Tweet
GOOD AND "THE USUAL"
HAKOB BADALYAN
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments-lrahos18578.html
15/07/2010
In their letter to the Council called Public, initiators of DILIJAN
international School expressed a noteworthy idea: "We should mention
that the legislative amendments which were the reason for the
negative context surrounding the DILIJAN project are not a necessary
precondition to its successful realization, however in its current
reading the law makes it difficult for the children of Armenia to
obtain IB diplomas at our school in case they desire to continue
their education at the universities in Republic of Armenia".
In fact, now the founders of this school affirm that the law draft,
which was introduced before the parliament and became a subject of
public and political discussions, was not necessary for them. Earlier,
the same thing was affirmed by the head of the Regent's school who
noted that he just talked to the Armenian power but did not express
intention to open a branch in Armenia. He even said that he does
not think it is expedient and necessary to open a Regent's school
in Armenia. The founders of Dilijan School do not say such a thing,
they even say that their school is going to be the guarantee for the
development of Armenia. But they state that the law amendments were
not necessary to the successful realization of the school, but it was
necessary for the Armenian citizens who want to study or send their
children to those schools.
In other words, they say that they do not need the law, but "we" do.
In this case "we" are the advocates of the law, who present the issue
as if it is changed only for some people to make investments. For
example, both the president Serge Sargsyan and the Premier Tigran
Sargsyan said it. If Serge Sargsyan avoided giving names, using only
"two schools" expression to ground the foreign-language initiative,
Tigran Sargsyan, during his meeting with bloggers, mentioned both
DILIJAN and Regent's Schools.
Now either Tigran Sargsyan tried to deceive people deliberately or
Tigran Sargsyan did not imagine the issue and found an inadequate
ground, or seeing the opposition of the society, the initiators
try to leave Tigran Sargsyan and to come out of the framework of
responsibility, as if they either never asked or demanded to change
the law.
The situation is really interesting. The issue is either being
deliberately rendered a confusion not knowing how to yield in front
of the resistance, or again deliberately, they arouse new passions
over the issue feeling that the public interest towards the issue
is weakening, while this could be a good topic to keep the public
occupied. By which one of these versions the power is led is difficult
to say. It is doubtless that those people, who proudly show their
courage to be worried of the future of Armenia, who dwell on Armenia,
new approaches, new values and cultures, intellect and science, do
not feel necessary to clearly talk to the society and to explain the
situation in details.
Anyway, it is evident that for example Premier Tigran Sargsyan needs
to once again explain to the society why he grounded the amendments
to the law by the presence of the DILIJAN and Regent's Schools, if now
those people are found out not to need it at all. Or, if they did not,
what the reason is that they were tried to be thrown into the field
of responsibility. Maybe this is the reason why the initiators of
these schools hurried to tell the society that they are not involved
in the governmental initiative to go against the Constitution.
All this confusion stands also for the fact that in Armenia it is
impossible to dwell on qualitative progress if there is a huge issue
on public legitimacy. It cannot be that one official is good for the
society the other is bad, so good is done through the good one and "the
usual" is done under the veil of it. Power does not have different
faces - intellectual and uneducated, having nicknames and titles,
honest and thief. The face of the power is unique which is either
legitimate or not. And the society is not to be demanded or expected to
divide the power into various faces and hence to decide how to treat
their initiatives. Everything is linked and if those various faces
do not understand it or try to ignore, it is already their business.
From: A. Papazian
HAKOB BADALYAN
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments-lrahos18578.html
15/07/2010
In their letter to the Council called Public, initiators of DILIJAN
international School expressed a noteworthy idea: "We should mention
that the legislative amendments which were the reason for the
negative context surrounding the DILIJAN project are not a necessary
precondition to its successful realization, however in its current
reading the law makes it difficult for the children of Armenia to
obtain IB diplomas at our school in case they desire to continue
their education at the universities in Republic of Armenia".
In fact, now the founders of this school affirm that the law draft,
which was introduced before the parliament and became a subject of
public and political discussions, was not necessary for them. Earlier,
the same thing was affirmed by the head of the Regent's school who
noted that he just talked to the Armenian power but did not express
intention to open a branch in Armenia. He even said that he does
not think it is expedient and necessary to open a Regent's school
in Armenia. The founders of Dilijan School do not say such a thing,
they even say that their school is going to be the guarantee for the
development of Armenia. But they state that the law amendments were
not necessary to the successful realization of the school, but it was
necessary for the Armenian citizens who want to study or send their
children to those schools.
In other words, they say that they do not need the law, but "we" do.
In this case "we" are the advocates of the law, who present the issue
as if it is changed only for some people to make investments. For
example, both the president Serge Sargsyan and the Premier Tigran
Sargsyan said it. If Serge Sargsyan avoided giving names, using only
"two schools" expression to ground the foreign-language initiative,
Tigran Sargsyan, during his meeting with bloggers, mentioned both
DILIJAN and Regent's Schools.
Now either Tigran Sargsyan tried to deceive people deliberately or
Tigran Sargsyan did not imagine the issue and found an inadequate
ground, or seeing the opposition of the society, the initiators
try to leave Tigran Sargsyan and to come out of the framework of
responsibility, as if they either never asked or demanded to change
the law.
The situation is really interesting. The issue is either being
deliberately rendered a confusion not knowing how to yield in front
of the resistance, or again deliberately, they arouse new passions
over the issue feeling that the public interest towards the issue
is weakening, while this could be a good topic to keep the public
occupied. By which one of these versions the power is led is difficult
to say. It is doubtless that those people, who proudly show their
courage to be worried of the future of Armenia, who dwell on Armenia,
new approaches, new values and cultures, intellect and science, do
not feel necessary to clearly talk to the society and to explain the
situation in details.
Anyway, it is evident that for example Premier Tigran Sargsyan needs
to once again explain to the society why he grounded the amendments
to the law by the presence of the DILIJAN and Regent's Schools, if now
those people are found out not to need it at all. Or, if they did not,
what the reason is that they were tried to be thrown into the field
of responsibility. Maybe this is the reason why the initiators of
these schools hurried to tell the society that they are not involved
in the governmental initiative to go against the Constitution.
All this confusion stands also for the fact that in Armenia it is
impossible to dwell on qualitative progress if there is a huge issue
on public legitimacy. It cannot be that one official is good for the
society the other is bad, so good is done through the good one and "the
usual" is done under the veil of it. Power does not have different
faces - intellectual and uneducated, having nicknames and titles,
honest and thief. The face of the power is unique which is either
legitimate or not. And the society is not to be demanded or expected to
divide the power into various faces and hence to decide how to treat
their initiatives. Everything is linked and if those various faces
do not understand it or try to ignore, it is already their business.
From: A. Papazian