Tweet
AUTHORITIES CONVINCED THE WEST
Siranuysh Papyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview24709.html
Published: 11:26:39 - 27/12/2011
Our interlocutor is President of Yerevan Press Club Boris Navasardyan
Mr. Navasardyan, today, many speak of the lack of any policy or its
emptiness, saying that everything is just imitation of policy. Do
you agree that our political thought failed to complete?
If saying political content we mean that all political forces
should have programs, a strategy and should clearly understand what
country model they want to build, then I agree, because the election
campaign in Armenia is not a campaign of programs but of administrative
resources and control of masses. I mean, if you don't have resources,
you can lead controllable masses to the square and achieve your goals.
Describing the policy more modestly, then for the government it is the
fight and working out of ways to fulfill the government's functions,
for the opposition it is the strategy to fight for becoming power
and strengthening positions. This kind of policy exists in Armenia
and it is not imitation because we have quite serious actors in the
political arena who can take decisions and act independently. This
can be called policy.
So, can we state the agendas of political forces lack the society's
interest and the mechanism of not loving the power and the opposition
comes from this?
I can definitely say that the public interest is very little expressed
in political stances. The main political forces don't see the direct
connection between their ensuring the public interest and gaining
dividends. This is a serious issue and can be explained by that fact
that it is not the society to form the political arena, choose the
leaders, impose demands and require their implementation, but the
political leaders offer themselves to the society, and the latter,
under the complete lack of election mechanisms, is forced to choose
any of the existing leaders and follow them having no mechanisms to
influence the future activities of the leader.
Is seeking leaders a task of the society? And is the scarcity of
leaders a matter of the society's weakness?
I would not say weakness, but unfortunately, the Armenian society is
not educated in terms of politics to work out mechanisms of dictating
its will, interests and wishes to the leaders. Let's be objective
and understand in what society we live in and what we inherited.
Everything is done inside the political field and first of all by
the authorities for no other alternative force, which would like
to rely on the society and try meeting the society's interests,
have any possibility for self-expression. For the formation of such
a political force, a free competitive field and accession to media is
necessary, especially television, it is necessary to authorize rallies
not after great scandals and under the pressure by the international
organizations, but to ensure the freedom of gathering just from the
beginning. In other words, provide possibilities for the opposition
to self-express and offer itself to the society as the fulfiller of
their wishes (such situations happen in Armenia for a limited period).
Unfortunately, in Armenia it is normal when political forces have
no such opportunities. In this case, the mechanisms of connection
between the political forces and the society don't function.
There is an opinion that we lost the winning haze in 2011, and
something new is necessary to be proposed to the society.
2011 was an interesting year in terms of the political analyses. I
would not say that the political forces proposed something to
the society, even if they did, it was done through mediation. The
implemented "creative" work was mainly within the government because
the conscience that it is impossible to go on this way matured there.
Today, it would be wrong to deny the existence of this conscience,
and in terms of preparing reforms, our authorities are orientated
first of all towards international partners. This implies that it is
necessary to prove to the European Union and the U.S. that we will
have a different country in terms of the quality after the election
processes which will be the fairest and the most democratic in the
modern history of Armenia. It is strange and sad that the interests of
the society are better presented by the international community, which
plays the role of the effective mediator between the Armenian nation
and the government. At this moment, I can say that the authorities
convinced the West. In fall, I had numerous opportunities to attend
discussions with the participation of Western experts, officials
and political figures, who said they were inclined to believing the
Armenian authorities' decisiveness to change everything.
Does the society have any choice? There have been no new proposals.
I agree that there is no new proposal, but there is choice based
on the former proposals too. Anyway, the society has choice always
because election is held through various factors: either you trust
unconditionally a political force and follow it, or you make a tactical
choice, taking into account what kind of division of forces you want
to see, say, in the parliament because not obligatory the force of
your dreams should be present in the parliament. The important is to
have counterbalance because in this case you can hope for discussion
and solutions based on consensus. In these terms, this is one step
forward of the situation we have had until now, when the coalition
was formed based on personal interests.
Siranuysh Papyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview24709.html
Published: 11:26:39 - 27/12/2011
Our interlocutor is President of Yerevan Press Club Boris Navasardyan
Mr. Navasardyan, today, many speak of the lack of any policy or its
emptiness, saying that everything is just imitation of policy. Do
you agree that our political thought failed to complete?
If saying political content we mean that all political forces
should have programs, a strategy and should clearly understand what
country model they want to build, then I agree, because the election
campaign in Armenia is not a campaign of programs but of administrative
resources and control of masses. I mean, if you don't have resources,
you can lead controllable masses to the square and achieve your goals.
Describing the policy more modestly, then for the government it is the
fight and working out of ways to fulfill the government's functions,
for the opposition it is the strategy to fight for becoming power
and strengthening positions. This kind of policy exists in Armenia
and it is not imitation because we have quite serious actors in the
political arena who can take decisions and act independently. This
can be called policy.
So, can we state the agendas of political forces lack the society's
interest and the mechanism of not loving the power and the opposition
comes from this?
I can definitely say that the public interest is very little expressed
in political stances. The main political forces don't see the direct
connection between their ensuring the public interest and gaining
dividends. This is a serious issue and can be explained by that fact
that it is not the society to form the political arena, choose the
leaders, impose demands and require their implementation, but the
political leaders offer themselves to the society, and the latter,
under the complete lack of election mechanisms, is forced to choose
any of the existing leaders and follow them having no mechanisms to
influence the future activities of the leader.
Is seeking leaders a task of the society? And is the scarcity of
leaders a matter of the society's weakness?
I would not say weakness, but unfortunately, the Armenian society is
not educated in terms of politics to work out mechanisms of dictating
its will, interests and wishes to the leaders. Let's be objective
and understand in what society we live in and what we inherited.
Everything is done inside the political field and first of all by
the authorities for no other alternative force, which would like
to rely on the society and try meeting the society's interests,
have any possibility for self-expression. For the formation of such
a political force, a free competitive field and accession to media is
necessary, especially television, it is necessary to authorize rallies
not after great scandals and under the pressure by the international
organizations, but to ensure the freedom of gathering just from the
beginning. In other words, provide possibilities for the opposition
to self-express and offer itself to the society as the fulfiller of
their wishes (such situations happen in Armenia for a limited period).
Unfortunately, in Armenia it is normal when political forces have
no such opportunities. In this case, the mechanisms of connection
between the political forces and the society don't function.
There is an opinion that we lost the winning haze in 2011, and
something new is necessary to be proposed to the society.
2011 was an interesting year in terms of the political analyses. I
would not say that the political forces proposed something to
the society, even if they did, it was done through mediation. The
implemented "creative" work was mainly within the government because
the conscience that it is impossible to go on this way matured there.
Today, it would be wrong to deny the existence of this conscience,
and in terms of preparing reforms, our authorities are orientated
first of all towards international partners. This implies that it is
necessary to prove to the European Union and the U.S. that we will
have a different country in terms of the quality after the election
processes which will be the fairest and the most democratic in the
modern history of Armenia. It is strange and sad that the interests of
the society are better presented by the international community, which
plays the role of the effective mediator between the Armenian nation
and the government. At this moment, I can say that the authorities
convinced the West. In fall, I had numerous opportunities to attend
discussions with the participation of Western experts, officials
and political figures, who said they were inclined to believing the
Armenian authorities' decisiveness to change everything.
Does the society have any choice? There have been no new proposals.
I agree that there is no new proposal, but there is choice based
on the former proposals too. Anyway, the society has choice always
because election is held through various factors: either you trust
unconditionally a political force and follow it, or you make a tactical
choice, taking into account what kind of division of forces you want
to see, say, in the parliament because not obligatory the force of
your dreams should be present in the parliament. The important is to
have counterbalance because in this case you can hope for discussion
and solutions based on consensus. In these terms, this is one step
forward of the situation we have had until now, when the coalition
was formed based on personal interests.