Tweet
SERZH SARGSYAN TRIES TO ERASE ANC
SIRANUYSH PAPYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview22279.html
Published: 14:44:16 - 20/06/2011
Gegham, in your opinion, what is the situation after Serzh Sargsyan's
response to the ANC's proposal of dialogue, which the ANC described
as ambiguous?
I think the statement of the president was not unexpected. The
analysis of comments of the past few days or weeks that preceded
it, the opinions of different political camps, Serzh Sargsyan was
expected to put it that way. Frankly speaking, I didn't think that
the statement of the ANC would be so rapid and off the point. As
far as I understand, this is an effort to procrastinate, analyze and
digest. I suppose that this statement was unexpected for the ANC. The
ANC should be dissatisfied with such a comment because the opinions
expressed by the ANC, and the expectations which were disclosed are
evidence that the ANC did not expect another answer, other tone,
other psychology. I think the ANC will not be satisfied with this
level of possibility of cooperation that has been offered.
In fact, Serzh Sargsyan's response marks the failure of the dialogue?
There are two important circumstances which I would like to separate.
There is a problem of terminology and political content. I mean the
"dialogue". Serzh Sargsyan emphasized this nuance, underlining that
this is a dialogue initiated by the government (true or false doesn't
matter) and ruling out negotiations. Two things are weighed, the
dialogue and the negotiation. This is not a matter or terms, they have
a strong political context and content. Serzh Sargsyan weighed down
the negotiations for the sake of his and the government's interests.
The dialogue is not favorable for the ANC in the way it is understood
by the government. The ANC needs negotiations. In a negotiation,
the sides are distinctly outlined. Moreover, the sides are poles.
In fact, Serzh Sargsyan conveyed that he (the government) and the ANC
are not poles, and he (the government) is the only pole. This is the
only difference of the dialogue-negotiation pun-racing. Involving
the ANC in a dialogue is Serzh Sargsyan's effort to erase the ANC
as a super influential force in the political life of Armenia and
reduce it to an ordinary political force, like the Heritage, the ARF
Dashnaktsutyun. The president said you can participate together and
equally with the other political forces in the political life of the
country. What is the difference? I think, in negotiations, you divide
the country into two poles, there is the government and there is the
Armenian National Congress. Serzh Sargsyan pointed out that there are
the rest too. Pay attention that snap elections can be negotiated but
not made an issue of a dialogue. The issue of the dialogue, as Serzh
Sargsyan said, could be home political, economic, state issues, while
negotiations imply two opposite and equal forces. This is, I think,
the essence of the terminological dispute.
The ANC should have proposed negotiations from the beginning?
Certainly! By offering the dialogue, the ANC erased itself as a party
to the negotiation. Similarly, the decision on dialogue changed the
attitude of an important part of the society toward the ANC. There was
a considerable layer which did not participate in the ANC activities
actively but supported them. I think a considerable part of the society
is disappointed with the ANC. Today there is a distinct assessment by
the society: both sides are authoritarian systems. This is a principal
and relevant assessment. After all, authoritarian thinking cannot
fight authoritarianism. First, a new non-authoritarian system must
be created inside the ANC to be able to challenge the government and
expect the support of the majority of the society. In the meantime,
the result is a dialogue of two authoritarian systems.
Since 2008 the ANC has given a distinct description: kleptocracy, the
authoritarian, criminal and oligarchic government must be toppled,
and the track for democracy must be taken. How do you describe his
authoritarianism?
There are several indicators of authoritarianism. In this case,
I would point to the lack of new people, young people, young and
fresh brains in the elite of the ANC. When I look at it, I can see
how many smart heads have appeared in the political and civil sphere,
a young generation has come with mature political consciousness. I
am surprised why the political sphere does not recruit this resource.
This does not refer to the ANC only but I mention it first because
the ANC is the most influential force in the opposition. Generally,
I can't understand the psychology, the atmosphere inside the ANC, the
attitude toward those who leave it, the lack of competition. It should
be noted that this phenomenon is typical of the entire political sphere
but if a party pursues quality and systemic change in the country,
it must rid of this. A new system, new relations and new values must
be proposed to the society and imposed on the government.
Meanwhile, we witness the fight of two strong authoritarian systems.
The winner will be authoritarian. The ANC stood a great chance and
still has a chance to refresh its ranks, ideology, style, to rid of
authoritarianism, look for resource in the civil society. The opposite
is slow death for this serious and influential political force.
Most people say the ANC enabled this civil society to occur after 2008.
I disagree. The nucleus of the civil society existed before 2008. Now
a rather independent system has occurred on the basis of the civil
society, it is multi-layered, multi-polar, has an independent stance.
One way or another, the reformist nucleus of the civil society
conducts an independent policy, it was not born from the ANC or any
other force. Moreover, this is the part which enables independent
poles to occur in the political field of Armenia. I don't know what
justifications and ways of politicization of the civil society exist
in Armenia, I don't know whether this process is right but I think
there is no other way and the civil society must be a serious pole.
Today the third force is often discussed but as my colleagues say there
is no need for a third force, the second force is needed which is going
to be the civil society. The first force is the authoritarian system
with all its expressions. Today there is need for the second system.
Do you mean the ANC is weak or the game is complicated?
I think the ANC has become weaker. The weakness of the ANC was obvious
from the beginning of the dialogue rather than after the speech of
the president.
What do you think, will the ANC take tough steps, are sudden changes
possible?
The ANC is in a difficult, ambiguous situation. The ANC has changed. A
few days ago the number of supporters, their moods, the atmosphere
was different. Today's ANC cannot speak on behalf of yesterday's ANC.
Moreover, the potential of the ANC today is enough for a mere dialogue,
whereas yesterday's ANC could negotiate.
Gegham, in the last rally Levon Ter-Petrosyan brought up the issue of
Karabakh, saying that challenges are many, and the war is not behind
the mountains. Many people say there is no settlement to the Karabakh
issue. What are your thoughts?
For whatever reason, we have cornered and driven ourselves into a
deadlock. The settlement that is there should favor the Armenian
side but the impression is that this settlement is favorable for
everyone except the Armenian side because only the Armenian side
says there is no settlement to the Karabakh issue. The settlement
is us, our achievements made through a high price and hardship, the
exceptional chance which we had and have. It is as good as it gets,
we simply need to use this resource. We live in a tragicomedy. The
Armenian reality lacks a political force which believes in its people
and is happy about its people's potential.
SIRANUYSH PAPYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview22279.html
Published: 14:44:16 - 20/06/2011
Gegham, in your opinion, what is the situation after Serzh Sargsyan's
response to the ANC's proposal of dialogue, which the ANC described
as ambiguous?
I think the statement of the president was not unexpected. The
analysis of comments of the past few days or weeks that preceded
it, the opinions of different political camps, Serzh Sargsyan was
expected to put it that way. Frankly speaking, I didn't think that
the statement of the ANC would be so rapid and off the point. As
far as I understand, this is an effort to procrastinate, analyze and
digest. I suppose that this statement was unexpected for the ANC. The
ANC should be dissatisfied with such a comment because the opinions
expressed by the ANC, and the expectations which were disclosed are
evidence that the ANC did not expect another answer, other tone,
other psychology. I think the ANC will not be satisfied with this
level of possibility of cooperation that has been offered.
In fact, Serzh Sargsyan's response marks the failure of the dialogue?
There are two important circumstances which I would like to separate.
There is a problem of terminology and political content. I mean the
"dialogue". Serzh Sargsyan emphasized this nuance, underlining that
this is a dialogue initiated by the government (true or false doesn't
matter) and ruling out negotiations. Two things are weighed, the
dialogue and the negotiation. This is not a matter or terms, they have
a strong political context and content. Serzh Sargsyan weighed down
the negotiations for the sake of his and the government's interests.
The dialogue is not favorable for the ANC in the way it is understood
by the government. The ANC needs negotiations. In a negotiation,
the sides are distinctly outlined. Moreover, the sides are poles.
In fact, Serzh Sargsyan conveyed that he (the government) and the ANC
are not poles, and he (the government) is the only pole. This is the
only difference of the dialogue-negotiation pun-racing. Involving
the ANC in a dialogue is Serzh Sargsyan's effort to erase the ANC
as a super influential force in the political life of Armenia and
reduce it to an ordinary political force, like the Heritage, the ARF
Dashnaktsutyun. The president said you can participate together and
equally with the other political forces in the political life of the
country. What is the difference? I think, in negotiations, you divide
the country into two poles, there is the government and there is the
Armenian National Congress. Serzh Sargsyan pointed out that there are
the rest too. Pay attention that snap elections can be negotiated but
not made an issue of a dialogue. The issue of the dialogue, as Serzh
Sargsyan said, could be home political, economic, state issues, while
negotiations imply two opposite and equal forces. This is, I think,
the essence of the terminological dispute.
The ANC should have proposed negotiations from the beginning?
Certainly! By offering the dialogue, the ANC erased itself as a party
to the negotiation. Similarly, the decision on dialogue changed the
attitude of an important part of the society toward the ANC. There was
a considerable layer which did not participate in the ANC activities
actively but supported them. I think a considerable part of the society
is disappointed with the ANC. Today there is a distinct assessment by
the society: both sides are authoritarian systems. This is a principal
and relevant assessment. After all, authoritarian thinking cannot
fight authoritarianism. First, a new non-authoritarian system must
be created inside the ANC to be able to challenge the government and
expect the support of the majority of the society. In the meantime,
the result is a dialogue of two authoritarian systems.
Since 2008 the ANC has given a distinct description: kleptocracy, the
authoritarian, criminal and oligarchic government must be toppled,
and the track for democracy must be taken. How do you describe his
authoritarianism?
There are several indicators of authoritarianism. In this case,
I would point to the lack of new people, young people, young and
fresh brains in the elite of the ANC. When I look at it, I can see
how many smart heads have appeared in the political and civil sphere,
a young generation has come with mature political consciousness. I
am surprised why the political sphere does not recruit this resource.
This does not refer to the ANC only but I mention it first because
the ANC is the most influential force in the opposition. Generally,
I can't understand the psychology, the atmosphere inside the ANC, the
attitude toward those who leave it, the lack of competition. It should
be noted that this phenomenon is typical of the entire political sphere
but if a party pursues quality and systemic change in the country,
it must rid of this. A new system, new relations and new values must
be proposed to the society and imposed on the government.
Meanwhile, we witness the fight of two strong authoritarian systems.
The winner will be authoritarian. The ANC stood a great chance and
still has a chance to refresh its ranks, ideology, style, to rid of
authoritarianism, look for resource in the civil society. The opposite
is slow death for this serious and influential political force.
Most people say the ANC enabled this civil society to occur after 2008.
I disagree. The nucleus of the civil society existed before 2008. Now
a rather independent system has occurred on the basis of the civil
society, it is multi-layered, multi-polar, has an independent stance.
One way or another, the reformist nucleus of the civil society
conducts an independent policy, it was not born from the ANC or any
other force. Moreover, this is the part which enables independent
poles to occur in the political field of Armenia. I don't know what
justifications and ways of politicization of the civil society exist
in Armenia, I don't know whether this process is right but I think
there is no other way and the civil society must be a serious pole.
Today the third force is often discussed but as my colleagues say there
is no need for a third force, the second force is needed which is going
to be the civil society. The first force is the authoritarian system
with all its expressions. Today there is need for the second system.
Do you mean the ANC is weak or the game is complicated?
I think the ANC has become weaker. The weakness of the ANC was obvious
from the beginning of the dialogue rather than after the speech of
the president.
What do you think, will the ANC take tough steps, are sudden changes
possible?
The ANC is in a difficult, ambiguous situation. The ANC has changed. A
few days ago the number of supporters, their moods, the atmosphere
was different. Today's ANC cannot speak on behalf of yesterday's ANC.
Moreover, the potential of the ANC today is enough for a mere dialogue,
whereas yesterday's ANC could negotiate.
Gegham, in the last rally Levon Ter-Petrosyan brought up the issue of
Karabakh, saying that challenges are many, and the war is not behind
the mountains. Many people say there is no settlement to the Karabakh
issue. What are your thoughts?
For whatever reason, we have cornered and driven ourselves into a
deadlock. The settlement that is there should favor the Armenian
side but the impression is that this settlement is favorable for
everyone except the Armenian side because only the Armenian side
says there is no settlement to the Karabakh issue. The settlement
is us, our achievements made through a high price and hardship, the
exceptional chance which we had and have. It is as good as it gets,
we simply need to use this resource. We live in a tragicomedy. The
Armenian reality lacks a political force which believes in its people
and is happy about its people's potential.