Tweet
ONE SINGLE STEP WILL NOT CHANGE THE ATMOSPHERE
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/country21975.html
Published: 12:26:55 - 27/05/2011
Interview with the former speaker of the National Assembly, Tigran
Torosyan
The most frequently discussed topic is the dialogue of the authorities
and the opposition. What are your thoughts on this?
I think it is misunderstanding when it is stated that a dialogue has
started between the Armenian National Congress and the authorities. I
have already stated that the word ~Sdialogue~T, if it refers to
political processes, implies concrete realities, such as problems
existing between the sides, adoption of a joint agenda of dialogue,
discussion of issues on the agenda and regular disclosure. None of
these points is in place. Hence, there is no dialogue as such. This
is the reality, no matter what the attitude is. Moreover, both the
Congress and the authorities say there is no dialogue. There is a
sequence of interrelated steps by the authorities and the opposition,
which causes the misunderstanding that there is a dialogue. In reality,
this situation is favorable for both of them, and both of them would
like to preserve it till the parliamentary elections, but I think
they will not be able to.
The Congress leader Levon Ter-Petrosyan said, after the fulfillment of
their three demands, it will be possible to engage in a dialogue. Till
now, the door of the dialogue was half-open, now it will be ajar.
This statement makes it clear there is no dialogue yet. As for the
three demands, I am sure, at a superficial glance, two of them have
been met, in fact. The first one referred to the freedom of assembles.
At first sight, we may think that if rallies in Freedom Square were
authorized, the demand has been met. But I would like to note that the
permission, as well as, all the bans before it were arbitrariness,
none of them observes the law. I would like to remind that it was
not allowed to hold the rally in Freedom Square, it was allowed to
hold it near Matenadaran. Then, the demonstrators walked to Freedom
Square and "negotiated" with the police. Remember that the Police
is not authorized to allow or ban a rally. But since the police
"allowed", the rally was held there. This is arbitrariness. To say
that the first demand has been met only for this permission would be
naive because tomorrow or the day after tomorrow they may again ban
rallies with the same arbitrariness. The first demand would be met
if the law were enforced. I should remind that there was a period
before and in 2007 when rallies were authorized, and everything was
done in accordance with the law.
The second demand of the opposition refers to the renewed investigation
of the events of March 1. When Serzh Sargsyan stated necessary to
renew the investigation and reveal the cases, the opposition considered
the demand met. But the authorities used to make similar reiteration
in 2008. Just a statement on the necessity to investigate does not
imply that the demand is met. It could be considered so if answers
were given to the questions at last, particularly concerning those
10 casualties. The demands have not been met.
Regarding the unblocking of Freedom Square for demonstrations, Serzh
Sargsyan said it would become a place for expression of alternative
opinions. Isn't it enough to consider Freedom Square will always be
open to the opposition?
I think, those who made such vows should explain what they meant. If
certain problems were solved through breaches and now they wish to
correct their mistakes, the first step should be to explain why the
law was violated, who violated the law and who was punished. After
that one will be able to believe that further actions will be legal.
If there is no such thing, illegal steps can repeat anyway.
Do you support a dialogue? Is a dialogue between the authorities and
the opposition necessary?
In normal countries there is always a dialogue between different
layers of the society, and it is absolutely necessary. But if it is
imitation, no one needs it.
Do you think the opposition will force the authorities to hold snap
elections?
If parliamentary elections are meant, I think it is impossible. Today
was the last meeting of parliament in this session, and the next is
scheduled in September. The stipulation of the Armenian Constitution on
disbanding the parliament is its inability, which must be observed for
three months. Consequently, even if the parliamentary majority loses
its prudence and chooses this ridiculous way, it will be possible
to disband the parliament no sooner than in December. In this case,
three months will be left to go before the scheduled elections.
It makes no sense. I think the authorities will not choose such an
artificial and absurd way.
But snap elections will change the atmosphere.
Those who think that the atmosphere will change with just one step,
no matter it is snap elections or amnesty are either naive or think the
society is naive. The real issues are much deeper. Serious programs and
serious steps in a number of directions are necessary to solve them.
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/country21975.html
Published: 12:26:55 - 27/05/2011
Interview with the former speaker of the National Assembly, Tigran
Torosyan
The most frequently discussed topic is the dialogue of the authorities
and the opposition. What are your thoughts on this?
I think it is misunderstanding when it is stated that a dialogue has
started between the Armenian National Congress and the authorities. I
have already stated that the word ~Sdialogue~T, if it refers to
political processes, implies concrete realities, such as problems
existing between the sides, adoption of a joint agenda of dialogue,
discussion of issues on the agenda and regular disclosure. None of
these points is in place. Hence, there is no dialogue as such. This
is the reality, no matter what the attitude is. Moreover, both the
Congress and the authorities say there is no dialogue. There is a
sequence of interrelated steps by the authorities and the opposition,
which causes the misunderstanding that there is a dialogue. In reality,
this situation is favorable for both of them, and both of them would
like to preserve it till the parliamentary elections, but I think
they will not be able to.
The Congress leader Levon Ter-Petrosyan said, after the fulfillment of
their three demands, it will be possible to engage in a dialogue. Till
now, the door of the dialogue was half-open, now it will be ajar.
This statement makes it clear there is no dialogue yet. As for the
three demands, I am sure, at a superficial glance, two of them have
been met, in fact. The first one referred to the freedom of assembles.
At first sight, we may think that if rallies in Freedom Square were
authorized, the demand has been met. But I would like to note that the
permission, as well as, all the bans before it were arbitrariness,
none of them observes the law. I would like to remind that it was
not allowed to hold the rally in Freedom Square, it was allowed to
hold it near Matenadaran. Then, the demonstrators walked to Freedom
Square and "negotiated" with the police. Remember that the Police
is not authorized to allow or ban a rally. But since the police
"allowed", the rally was held there. This is arbitrariness. To say
that the first demand has been met only for this permission would be
naive because tomorrow or the day after tomorrow they may again ban
rallies with the same arbitrariness. The first demand would be met
if the law were enforced. I should remind that there was a period
before and in 2007 when rallies were authorized, and everything was
done in accordance with the law.
The second demand of the opposition refers to the renewed investigation
of the events of March 1. When Serzh Sargsyan stated necessary to
renew the investigation and reveal the cases, the opposition considered
the demand met. But the authorities used to make similar reiteration
in 2008. Just a statement on the necessity to investigate does not
imply that the demand is met. It could be considered so if answers
were given to the questions at last, particularly concerning those
10 casualties. The demands have not been met.
Regarding the unblocking of Freedom Square for demonstrations, Serzh
Sargsyan said it would become a place for expression of alternative
opinions. Isn't it enough to consider Freedom Square will always be
open to the opposition?
I think, those who made such vows should explain what they meant. If
certain problems were solved through breaches and now they wish to
correct their mistakes, the first step should be to explain why the
law was violated, who violated the law and who was punished. After
that one will be able to believe that further actions will be legal.
If there is no such thing, illegal steps can repeat anyway.
Do you support a dialogue? Is a dialogue between the authorities and
the opposition necessary?
In normal countries there is always a dialogue between different
layers of the society, and it is absolutely necessary. But if it is
imitation, no one needs it.
Do you think the opposition will force the authorities to hold snap
elections?
If parliamentary elections are meant, I think it is impossible. Today
was the last meeting of parliament in this session, and the next is
scheduled in September. The stipulation of the Armenian Constitution on
disbanding the parliament is its inability, which must be observed for
three months. Consequently, even if the parliamentary majority loses
its prudence and chooses this ridiculous way, it will be possible
to disband the parliament no sooner than in December. In this case,
three months will be left to go before the scheduled elections.
It makes no sense. I think the authorities will not choose such an
artificial and absurd way.
But snap elections will change the atmosphere.
Those who think that the atmosphere will change with just one step,
no matter it is snap elections or amnesty are either naive or think the
society is naive. The real issues are much deeper. Serious programs and
serious steps in a number of directions are necessary to solve them.