Tweet
CONGRESS CREATED THE FANTASY
SIRANUYSH PAPYAN
Lragir.am
06/05/10
Why does everybody exclude the possibility of a Kirgiz scenario in
Armenia? Why isn't it possible here?
To tell the truth, the Kirgiz topic does not interest me much because
we have no bases of information about those people, and processes,
so discussions are somehow in vain. It is particular to us to dwell
on thing about which we have zero information. This is the reason
why the discussion does not bring to anything. Because, intellectuals
are supposed to know everything, but they do not think they need to
be competitive. I know that in Kirgizia the problem consists in the
division between North and South, in the fights of clans.
In your opinion, does a nation have the right to rebel?
I will indiscreetly remind you that the theme of rebellion, I picked
up one of the firsts, back in 2006. From a theoretical point of view,
people cannot have the right to revolt, if the philosophy of democracy
and the Constitution is adopted.
Even if you refuse democratic values which is the right of everyone, so
you cannot but to accept the Constitution of the country. The logic of
democracy without the right to revolt is incomplete. Our Constitution
runs that the power in the country belongs to the people and is formed
through elections. It is also mentioned that the usurpation of the
power by a group of people is a crime, but there is no mechanism,
which can be applicable, if usurpation anyway happens like it happened
on March 1.
Initially, in the Declaration on Human Rights, adopted after the
French Revolution, the right to revolt was confirmed officially. Then,
in 1793, this provision was removed. The right to revolt was discussed
before too, and some scholars said 'yes'.
I am personally in favor of it, we have also consolidated this position
in the Constitution, but practical questions occur: what does it mean,
people have the right to revolt, how to define the concept of "people",
"rebellion" and "right"?
If you have a need for violence, then even if you are among the
majority, there is always the temptation to impose your views on the
rest. I do not propose to eliminate violence, but perfect victory is
a victory without violence.
Does the idea on a revolt not mature in an insolvable situation?
The tangible part of our people is has revolt moods now too. After
2008, values which will bring to a revolution in our minds are formed
and this will be the biggest revolt.
I would like the power to have been changed in 2008, but I was sure
then that very soon, victory would turn into despair. We are still
pagans and we want a revolt in any case. In practice, we are not
democratic, so we want a dad with bludgeon to come to power. Congress
may be accused of everything possible, say, I do not understand their
position in connection with the Karabakh issue, but Congress created
the fantasy- it formed the concept of a bloodless revolution.
And how about despair and creation of a new force?
I do not think the creation of a new movement in the current moment
can be real. Besides, those who lived 2008 cannot get despaired. It
is possible to search, to make mistakes but despair is a passed phase.
Currently discussions take place exclusively in the oppositional
space. Since the authorities have nothing. And not only adequate
intellectual response. This means that the time will come and they
will go.
I myself have criticized Congress, but now I realized that it turns
into a kind of gathering of hurrying people, encrusted, and even
uninteresting structures. And I am afraid that it could result in a
stagnant swamp.
The fact that people during these two years are in a Movement which
from time to time turns into a routine cannot but change men, and I
will not be afraid of this word, give them clearance.
Ombudsman affirms that processes are taking place within the
government too.
This is a difficult question. I do not believe much in the fight
against monopolists, because, more likely, the point is about the
centralization, so if there are several oligarchs, so tomorrow,
we can have only one in the figure of all-loved Sergio Libertovich.
Which civilization space would you rate Armenia?
We, of course, are a post-Soviet country, so all the events in Armenia
should be viewed as a manifestation of a broader field. But in this
case this is a "minus" for us and it would be better as soon as
possible to "break away" from this space.
In theory, CIS may turn into something else too, currently, I do
not see such tendencies. Russia heads the system, which can propose
to the world interesting ideas besides inarticulate sounds. But in
the CIS space, you may receive a new system of values. I believe
that Russia cannot sleep forever, and someday it will again start
interesting and informative dialogue with Russia. Maybe then you will
be surprised how your venerable servant, critic of Russian influence,
will be the most pro-Russian man in Armenia, remembering his Russian
education and Russian language.
SIRANUYSH PAPYAN
Lragir.am
06/05/10
Why does everybody exclude the possibility of a Kirgiz scenario in
Armenia? Why isn't it possible here?
To tell the truth, the Kirgiz topic does not interest me much because
we have no bases of information about those people, and processes,
so discussions are somehow in vain. It is particular to us to dwell
on thing about which we have zero information. This is the reason
why the discussion does not bring to anything. Because, intellectuals
are supposed to know everything, but they do not think they need to
be competitive. I know that in Kirgizia the problem consists in the
division between North and South, in the fights of clans.
In your opinion, does a nation have the right to rebel?
I will indiscreetly remind you that the theme of rebellion, I picked
up one of the firsts, back in 2006. From a theoretical point of view,
people cannot have the right to revolt, if the philosophy of democracy
and the Constitution is adopted.
Even if you refuse democratic values which is the right of everyone, so
you cannot but to accept the Constitution of the country. The logic of
democracy without the right to revolt is incomplete. Our Constitution
runs that the power in the country belongs to the people and is formed
through elections. It is also mentioned that the usurpation of the
power by a group of people is a crime, but there is no mechanism,
which can be applicable, if usurpation anyway happens like it happened
on March 1.
Initially, in the Declaration on Human Rights, adopted after the
French Revolution, the right to revolt was confirmed officially. Then,
in 1793, this provision was removed. The right to revolt was discussed
before too, and some scholars said 'yes'.
I am personally in favor of it, we have also consolidated this position
in the Constitution, but practical questions occur: what does it mean,
people have the right to revolt, how to define the concept of "people",
"rebellion" and "right"?
If you have a need for violence, then even if you are among the
majority, there is always the temptation to impose your views on the
rest. I do not propose to eliminate violence, but perfect victory is
a victory without violence.
Does the idea on a revolt not mature in an insolvable situation?
The tangible part of our people is has revolt moods now too. After
2008, values which will bring to a revolution in our minds are formed
and this will be the biggest revolt.
I would like the power to have been changed in 2008, but I was sure
then that very soon, victory would turn into despair. We are still
pagans and we want a revolt in any case. In practice, we are not
democratic, so we want a dad with bludgeon to come to power. Congress
may be accused of everything possible, say, I do not understand their
position in connection with the Karabakh issue, but Congress created
the fantasy- it formed the concept of a bloodless revolution.
And how about despair and creation of a new force?
I do not think the creation of a new movement in the current moment
can be real. Besides, those who lived 2008 cannot get despaired. It
is possible to search, to make mistakes but despair is a passed phase.
Currently discussions take place exclusively in the oppositional
space. Since the authorities have nothing. And not only adequate
intellectual response. This means that the time will come and they
will go.
I myself have criticized Congress, but now I realized that it turns
into a kind of gathering of hurrying people, encrusted, and even
uninteresting structures. And I am afraid that it could result in a
stagnant swamp.
The fact that people during these two years are in a Movement which
from time to time turns into a routine cannot but change men, and I
will not be afraid of this word, give them clearance.
Ombudsman affirms that processes are taking place within the
government too.
This is a difficult question. I do not believe much in the fight
against monopolists, because, more likely, the point is about the
centralization, so if there are several oligarchs, so tomorrow,
we can have only one in the figure of all-loved Sergio Libertovich.
Which civilization space would you rate Armenia?
We, of course, are a post-Soviet country, so all the events in Armenia
should be viewed as a manifestation of a broader field. But in this
case this is a "minus" for us and it would be better as soon as
possible to "break away" from this space.
In theory, CIS may turn into something else too, currently, I do
not see such tendencies. Russia heads the system, which can propose
to the world interesting ideas besides inarticulate sounds. But in
the CIS space, you may receive a new system of values. I believe
that Russia cannot sleep forever, and someday it will again start
interesting and informative dialogue with Russia. Maybe then you will
be surprised how your venerable servant, critic of Russian influence,
will be the most pro-Russian man in Armenia, remembering his Russian
education and Russian language.