Tweet
HAK - GOVERNMENT TALKS: IN WHOSE BEST INTEREST?
Armen Arakelyan
hetq
July 28, 2011
The Armenian National Congress (HAK) and the RA government have finally
clarified the issues that will serve as the crux of continued dialog
- elections.
Negotiations will only center around the following issue - to what
extent can snap elections be held within the time parameters set out
by the HAK.
This is to say that the two sides will have to decide by October
whether it is appropriate to hold snap presidential and parliamentary
elections and what measures will have to be enacted to ensure that
these elections are free and fair.
In other words, whatever the final mix, it will only deal with the
issue of elections and mainly serve the interests of the government
and HAK.
But the ramifications of these talks between the two main opposing
groups will have its impact across the entire political field and
influence those forces left out of the process.
The government and the HAK are, in essence, writing the rule book
for all players large and small.
Such an approach cannot be welcomed by those "marginalized" groups
preparing for the elections, but, they have no one else to blame
but themselves.
For the past seven months they have stood on the sidelines, merely
disparaging developments as the process has unfolded, rather than
coming up with alternate formulas or agendas for such dialog.
But the core problem rests in society itself. In the end, it's the
voters, society at large, who form the government.
So the question is whether these talks serve the interests of society.
In essence, these talks are taking place outside the purview and/or
supervision of society.
If those doing the negotiating were only defining an agenda that deals
with their issues, the above circumstance wouldn't be that crucial.
But the two sides state that they are acting in the interests of
the society, even though they prefer to operate on the sidelines
of society.
Thus, despite the decisions adopted regarding elections, the internal
level of doubt and suspicion will not be overcome.
This factor isn't in the best interest of HAK since it seeks to offer
itself up as the servant of the people and working in the interests
of all.
Thus, in the first case, it is the HAK that should be concerned to have
as great a level of civic and public participation in the process as
possible. This would also limit the government's chance to drag its
feet or manoeuvre for position.
It cannot be ruled out that the government's tactic is to deepen the
popular distrust of HAK by constantly meeting it halfway.
HAK understands that whether or not the government is pursuing such a
line, to continue the process in such a framework means the outright
dissolution of its potential electoral base.
This is why the HAK has set an October deadline for snap elections
and September as the deadline to reach a corresponding agreement.
It also cannot be ruled out that the two sides will seriously pursue
the possibility of holding snap elections.
For the past two weeks, the government not only hasn't ruled out the
possibility but has officially declared that such developments cannot
be ruled out.
However, there are at least two political prerequisites that do not
rule out the possible holding of snap elections, regardless of the
HAK's desires on the matter.
The first is the unprecedented situation in the Karabakh matter and the
fact that the international community no longer hides the possibility
of forcing the parties to sign an agreement on basic principles.
Snap elections resulting from joint talks with the opposition, might
serve to temporarily stave off such pressures from without.
The second is the unproductive economic policies pursued by the
government leading to an uncontrolled exodus from the country and
unrealized budgetary predictions for the 1st half of 2011.
But the question is whether Serzh Sargsyan will agree to snap
presidential elections. Probably not.
The way I see it, the powers that be will allow for snap parliamentary
elections only.
Armen Arakelyan
hetq
July 28, 2011
The Armenian National Congress (HAK) and the RA government have finally
clarified the issues that will serve as the crux of continued dialog
- elections.
Negotiations will only center around the following issue - to what
extent can snap elections be held within the time parameters set out
by the HAK.
This is to say that the two sides will have to decide by October
whether it is appropriate to hold snap presidential and parliamentary
elections and what measures will have to be enacted to ensure that
these elections are free and fair.
In other words, whatever the final mix, it will only deal with the
issue of elections and mainly serve the interests of the government
and HAK.
But the ramifications of these talks between the two main opposing
groups will have its impact across the entire political field and
influence those forces left out of the process.
The government and the HAK are, in essence, writing the rule book
for all players large and small.
Such an approach cannot be welcomed by those "marginalized" groups
preparing for the elections, but, they have no one else to blame
but themselves.
For the past seven months they have stood on the sidelines, merely
disparaging developments as the process has unfolded, rather than
coming up with alternate formulas or agendas for such dialog.
But the core problem rests in society itself. In the end, it's the
voters, society at large, who form the government.
So the question is whether these talks serve the interests of society.
In essence, these talks are taking place outside the purview and/or
supervision of society.
If those doing the negotiating were only defining an agenda that deals
with their issues, the above circumstance wouldn't be that crucial.
But the two sides state that they are acting in the interests of
the society, even though they prefer to operate on the sidelines
of society.
Thus, despite the decisions adopted regarding elections, the internal
level of doubt and suspicion will not be overcome.
This factor isn't in the best interest of HAK since it seeks to offer
itself up as the servant of the people and working in the interests
of all.
Thus, in the first case, it is the HAK that should be concerned to have
as great a level of civic and public participation in the process as
possible. This would also limit the government's chance to drag its
feet or manoeuvre for position.
It cannot be ruled out that the government's tactic is to deepen the
popular distrust of HAK by constantly meeting it halfway.
HAK understands that whether or not the government is pursuing such a
line, to continue the process in such a framework means the outright
dissolution of its potential electoral base.
This is why the HAK has set an October deadline for snap elections
and September as the deadline to reach a corresponding agreement.
It also cannot be ruled out that the two sides will seriously pursue
the possibility of holding snap elections.
For the past two weeks, the government not only hasn't ruled out the
possibility but has officially declared that such developments cannot
be ruled out.
However, there are at least two political prerequisites that do not
rule out the possible holding of snap elections, regardless of the
HAK's desires on the matter.
The first is the unprecedented situation in the Karabakh matter and the
fact that the international community no longer hides the possibility
of forcing the parties to sign an agreement on basic principles.
Snap elections resulting from joint talks with the opposition, might
serve to temporarily stave off such pressures from without.
The second is the unproductive economic policies pursued by the
government leading to an uncontrolled exodus from the country and
unrealized budgetary predictions for the 1st half of 2011.
But the question is whether Serzh Sargsyan will agree to snap
presidential elections. Probably not.
The way I see it, the powers that be will allow for snap parliamentary
elections only.