Tweet
LET TER-PETROSYAN AND SARGSYAN THINK
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments22277.html
Published: 12:56:07 - 20/06/2011
Recently I have met an acquaintance of mine who is not a political
or civil activist, works in service, and he is interested in politics
accordingly. "Hakob, soon we will wish Kocharyan were back," he said
unexpectedly for me.
It was unexpected because in 2008 my acquaintance was excited about
the civil movement, the possibility of change of government, he was
furious about the clampdown by Kocharyan, and after the lift of the
state of emergency he was excited about the possibility of a new wave
of the civil movement.
"In Kocharyan's time, people at least had some income. People were
able to work and achieve something. Now everyone is leaving Armenia,"
he said.
I didn't know what to say. In such cases one can repeat what both the
government and the opposition say that under Kocharyan the economic
growth was a bubble, and it is impossible to develop and maintain an
economy on construction or buying capacity based on remittances, and
this wrong structure and the statistics which was an end in itself
has led to the present situation, and the clan-oligarchic economy
would sooner or later lead to a crisis which was facilitated by the
global financial and economic crisis, and so on.
To me who track the economic and political processes, talk to experts,
and have an idea of the economy at a level which is a little higher
than the everyday perception, it is clear that these evaluations are
relevant, and the two-digit economic growth in Armenia was the result
of the favorable international economic and political conjuncture
rather than the wise economic policy, and Robert Kocharyan's role
was his ability to orient and enable some money to flow to Armenia
and produce an economic effect under this conjuncture.
However, all this is not essential today, and evidence to this is my
short talk to my acquaintance. People assess political and economic
processes and government with the life they live. The majority of the
society does not care about the structure and content of the economic
policy. People know that under Kocharyan they lived better than now
and now they can hardly make both ends meet.
For people, the goal of the political force should be creating
better living conditions, and the force which makes people's life
better is supported by the society, or this is the principle by
which people choose the least of all troubles. This is the way, it
cannot be otherwise, the rest is political babbling that politicians
occasionally do.
The fact is that a person who was set against Kocharyan and was
excited about the possibility of change of government in 2008 now
says we will wish Kocharyan were back.
This is evidence to the utter failure of both the government, Serzh
Sargsyan, and the opposition, Levon Ter-Petrosyan. This man doesn't
care when there will be change of government. He already says it was
better under Kocharyan.
Let Serzh Sargsyan and Ter-Petrosyan think about it. And they had
better not say that people think with their stomachs, Kocharyan was
a monster, and these "thoughtless" people are nostalgic about this
monster for a piece of bread.
First of all, in all countries the most important indicator for the
society is its social situation, exercise of its civil freedoms and
predictability of this situation in time.
The decline of social security is more than obvious. In terms of
protection of rights and freedoms, there is no major change from
Kocharyan's time. Moreover, were there a difference in terms of rights
and freedoms, the social effect would be felt, because at present
the only reliable way for economic development is to ensure liberal
economy, legal protection of property, an independent judicial system,
and an environment to ensure creative freedom for people to speak,
express opinions, listen to opinions and act.
And let the government and opposition not think that those who
bring up this issue are busy advertising Kocharyan. Of course,
there are people who do this bluntly or implicitly. For instance,
websites are set up which campaign for Robert Kocharyan. However,
they are simply the consequence of the situation because in reality in
Armenia the current situation itself advertises Kocharyan, in terms
of both internal and external policies. Both the government and the
opposition must think about it rather than think that by labeling those
who speak about this as pro-Kocharyan they will solve this problem.
After all, there are things about which we can keep quiet but which
cannot be forgotten or not taken into account. When Levon Ter-Petrosyan
resigned in 1998, most people were satisfied and happy about it. Robert
Kocharyan enabled Levon Ter-Petrosyan to return with a triumph.
Perhaps, thanks to the fruitless effort of dialogue between Serzh
Sargsyan and Ter-Petrosyan Kocharyan will stand the chance of
triumphant return, which seems impossible now. Most people believe
that Kocharyan is tied to March 1. In fact, he is. Leaving his office,
he left killed people behind him. It is not important whether he
ordered the clampdown, others did, or the situation went out of
control. The society's perception is that people were killed during
the clampdown which was perpetrated under his leadership. However,
years pass, and Kocharyan's responsibility does not get a legal
verification. Meanwhile, responsibility requires verification as
public perception cannot be manipulated endlessly.
And there is no need to accuse the society of short memory, thinking
with their stomachs, or the like, to say that the society deserves but
Kocharyan. The societies are made worth something by political elites.
The societies live according to the values shaped by elites. Elites are
responsible for the vector of the public and social life, and neither
government nor the opposition should try to shake responsibility off
their shoulders through reference to the society's unworthiness.
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments22277.html
Published: 12:56:07 - 20/06/2011
Recently I have met an acquaintance of mine who is not a political
or civil activist, works in service, and he is interested in politics
accordingly. "Hakob, soon we will wish Kocharyan were back," he said
unexpectedly for me.
It was unexpected because in 2008 my acquaintance was excited about
the civil movement, the possibility of change of government, he was
furious about the clampdown by Kocharyan, and after the lift of the
state of emergency he was excited about the possibility of a new wave
of the civil movement.
"In Kocharyan's time, people at least had some income. People were
able to work and achieve something. Now everyone is leaving Armenia,"
he said.
I didn't know what to say. In such cases one can repeat what both the
government and the opposition say that under Kocharyan the economic
growth was a bubble, and it is impossible to develop and maintain an
economy on construction or buying capacity based on remittances, and
this wrong structure and the statistics which was an end in itself
has led to the present situation, and the clan-oligarchic economy
would sooner or later lead to a crisis which was facilitated by the
global financial and economic crisis, and so on.
To me who track the economic and political processes, talk to experts,
and have an idea of the economy at a level which is a little higher
than the everyday perception, it is clear that these evaluations are
relevant, and the two-digit economic growth in Armenia was the result
of the favorable international economic and political conjuncture
rather than the wise economic policy, and Robert Kocharyan's role
was his ability to orient and enable some money to flow to Armenia
and produce an economic effect under this conjuncture.
However, all this is not essential today, and evidence to this is my
short talk to my acquaintance. People assess political and economic
processes and government with the life they live. The majority of the
society does not care about the structure and content of the economic
policy. People know that under Kocharyan they lived better than now
and now they can hardly make both ends meet.
For people, the goal of the political force should be creating
better living conditions, and the force which makes people's life
better is supported by the society, or this is the principle by
which people choose the least of all troubles. This is the way, it
cannot be otherwise, the rest is political babbling that politicians
occasionally do.
The fact is that a person who was set against Kocharyan and was
excited about the possibility of change of government in 2008 now
says we will wish Kocharyan were back.
This is evidence to the utter failure of both the government, Serzh
Sargsyan, and the opposition, Levon Ter-Petrosyan. This man doesn't
care when there will be change of government. He already says it was
better under Kocharyan.
Let Serzh Sargsyan and Ter-Petrosyan think about it. And they had
better not say that people think with their stomachs, Kocharyan was
a monster, and these "thoughtless" people are nostalgic about this
monster for a piece of bread.
First of all, in all countries the most important indicator for the
society is its social situation, exercise of its civil freedoms and
predictability of this situation in time.
The decline of social security is more than obvious. In terms of
protection of rights and freedoms, there is no major change from
Kocharyan's time. Moreover, were there a difference in terms of rights
and freedoms, the social effect would be felt, because at present
the only reliable way for economic development is to ensure liberal
economy, legal protection of property, an independent judicial system,
and an environment to ensure creative freedom for people to speak,
express opinions, listen to opinions and act.
And let the government and opposition not think that those who
bring up this issue are busy advertising Kocharyan. Of course,
there are people who do this bluntly or implicitly. For instance,
websites are set up which campaign for Robert Kocharyan. However,
they are simply the consequence of the situation because in reality in
Armenia the current situation itself advertises Kocharyan, in terms
of both internal and external policies. Both the government and the
opposition must think about it rather than think that by labeling those
who speak about this as pro-Kocharyan they will solve this problem.
After all, there are things about which we can keep quiet but which
cannot be forgotten or not taken into account. When Levon Ter-Petrosyan
resigned in 1998, most people were satisfied and happy about it. Robert
Kocharyan enabled Levon Ter-Petrosyan to return with a triumph.
Perhaps, thanks to the fruitless effort of dialogue between Serzh
Sargsyan and Ter-Petrosyan Kocharyan will stand the chance of
triumphant return, which seems impossible now. Most people believe
that Kocharyan is tied to March 1. In fact, he is. Leaving his office,
he left killed people behind him. It is not important whether he
ordered the clampdown, others did, or the situation went out of
control. The society's perception is that people were killed during
the clampdown which was perpetrated under his leadership. However,
years pass, and Kocharyan's responsibility does not get a legal
verification. Meanwhile, responsibility requires verification as
public perception cannot be manipulated endlessly.
And there is no need to accuse the society of short memory, thinking
with their stomachs, or the like, to say that the society deserves but
Kocharyan. The societies are made worth something by political elites.
The societies live according to the values shaped by elites. Elites are
responsible for the vector of the public and social life, and neither
government nor the opposition should try to shake responsibility off
their shoulders through reference to the society's unworthiness.