Tweet
A BRUNT INTENDED FOR ROBERT KOCHARYAN
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments21475.html
Published: 12:28:58 - 21/04/2011
By bringing up the issue of March 1 in the meeting with the heads
of law enforcement and judicial bodies, Serge Sargsyan responded to
Robert Kocharyan, whose office head Victor Soghomonyan had responded
to Member of Parliament Victor Dallakyan.
Dallakyan announced on April 12 that March 1 was not desirable for
Serge Sargsyan, whereas for Robert Kocharyan it was desirable because
he wanted to gain influence over Serge Sargsyan. The head of the
office of Robert Kocharyan stated that only the lack of material of
thinking in the brain can make people state that March 1 was desirable
for Robert Kocharyan only.
In other words, Robert Kocharyan decided not only to deny that March
1 was desirable for him but also hold Serge Sargsyan who wanted to
escape this circle. A few days later, Serge Sargsyan expressed his
expectations regarding revelation of March 1, thereby showing Robert
Kocharyan that he does not fear accusations.
Most probably, Serge Sargsyan possesses evidence that he did not have
a deciding role in what happened on that day or he simply responds to
Kocharyan publicly to show that he utters the last word, not Kocharyan,
and in reality revelation of March 1 because in that case a number
of questions regarding Serge Sargsyan may be brought up.
For instance, if it turns out that he did not participate in planning
the actions of the government on that day, it does not free him from
responsibility because at that time Serge Sargsyan was not the last
person in government, he was the leader of the parliament majority
and the prime minister. Consequently, if he found that the government
was making a mistake, he should have tried to prevent it through
his government leverages in the framework of authorities granted to
him by the Constitution. And these leverages were many. The question
occurs whether he tried to use them to prevent March 1.
These questions would hardly be pleasant for Serge Sargsyan, and
it is possible that in reality he is not interested in the complete
revelation of March 1, and at present he is trying to use this question
for his political interests, on the one hand, to imitate dialogue with
the opposition for the society and the international organizations,
which favors him more than the opposition, and on the other hand,
to imitate influence over Robert Kocharyan.
In the given case, this situation is favorable for the opposition in
the short-term perspective because they can present Serge Sargsyan's
effort to bring up March 1 as the result of pressure of the powerful
wave of rallies. Kocharyan must be interested in changing the situation
because he has appeared in an unfavorable and even deadlock situation
in terms of political plans and interests. It is possible, of course,
that he has no such plans, and his main purpose is to ensure his
personal immunity, for which he may agree to become a public target
in return for backstage guarantees of security.
At this point, Kocharyan's problem is that in Armenia a tendency
of eliminating the difference between the forestage and backstage,
opening the cards is obvious, and disclosure ensures more guarantees
because the role of public opinion has increased remarkably in home
political processes, and the likely setting is that only the society
will give guarantees.
From: A. Papazian
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments21475.html
Published: 12:28:58 - 21/04/2011
By bringing up the issue of March 1 in the meeting with the heads
of law enforcement and judicial bodies, Serge Sargsyan responded to
Robert Kocharyan, whose office head Victor Soghomonyan had responded
to Member of Parliament Victor Dallakyan.
Dallakyan announced on April 12 that March 1 was not desirable for
Serge Sargsyan, whereas for Robert Kocharyan it was desirable because
he wanted to gain influence over Serge Sargsyan. The head of the
office of Robert Kocharyan stated that only the lack of material of
thinking in the brain can make people state that March 1 was desirable
for Robert Kocharyan only.
In other words, Robert Kocharyan decided not only to deny that March
1 was desirable for him but also hold Serge Sargsyan who wanted to
escape this circle. A few days later, Serge Sargsyan expressed his
expectations regarding revelation of March 1, thereby showing Robert
Kocharyan that he does not fear accusations.
Most probably, Serge Sargsyan possesses evidence that he did not have
a deciding role in what happened on that day or he simply responds to
Kocharyan publicly to show that he utters the last word, not Kocharyan,
and in reality revelation of March 1 because in that case a number
of questions regarding Serge Sargsyan may be brought up.
For instance, if it turns out that he did not participate in planning
the actions of the government on that day, it does not free him from
responsibility because at that time Serge Sargsyan was not the last
person in government, he was the leader of the parliament majority
and the prime minister. Consequently, if he found that the government
was making a mistake, he should have tried to prevent it through
his government leverages in the framework of authorities granted to
him by the Constitution. And these leverages were many. The question
occurs whether he tried to use them to prevent March 1.
These questions would hardly be pleasant for Serge Sargsyan, and
it is possible that in reality he is not interested in the complete
revelation of March 1, and at present he is trying to use this question
for his political interests, on the one hand, to imitate dialogue with
the opposition for the society and the international organizations,
which favors him more than the opposition, and on the other hand,
to imitate influence over Robert Kocharyan.
In the given case, this situation is favorable for the opposition in
the short-term perspective because they can present Serge Sargsyan's
effort to bring up March 1 as the result of pressure of the powerful
wave of rallies. Kocharyan must be interested in changing the situation
because he has appeared in an unfavorable and even deadlock situation
in terms of political plans and interests. It is possible, of course,
that he has no such plans, and his main purpose is to ensure his
personal immunity, for which he may agree to become a public target
in return for backstage guarantees of security.
At this point, Kocharyan's problem is that in Armenia a tendency
of eliminating the difference between the forestage and backstage,
opening the cards is obvious, and disclosure ensures more guarantees
because the role of public opinion has increased remarkably in home
political processes, and the likely setting is that only the society
will give guarantees.
From: A. Papazian