Tweet
KOCHARYAN FRONT IS NOT ESTABLISHED
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments24001.html
Published: 18:05:56 - 31/10/2011
Gagik Tsarukyan's latest interview where he actually reiterates his
loyalty to the agreements reached upon signing the memorandum on
February 17, the question occurs whether Tsarukyan's comment means
that Kocharyan gives up on his intention to participate in the
parliamentary election.
Certainly, Kocharyan did not publicly announce about such an
intention. Vardan Oskanyan, the ex-foreign minister had suggested
on his involvement, and afterwards Robert Kocharyan mentioned in an
interview that three things will make him consider return: economic
plight, public demands, ability for fundamental change.
Kocharyan's cautiousness is understood. He will not announce about
his return unless he is sure that nothing will hinder him, and he will
not stop halfway. The current conditions do not allow for optimism but
it does not mean that Kocharyan will not participate in the upcoming
parliamentary elections, at least directly.
The point is that the structure of the Armenian government is such
that it can be demolished through revolution or you must enter it from
inside. It is difficult to imagine Kocharyan and revolution together.
And to enter from inside, it is enough for Kocharyan to be interested
in the upcoming parliamentary election and try to boost his influence
on the government to reserve a chance to return.
In this sense, despite the absence of a direct and open statement,
Kocharyan would be one of the main subjects of the parliamentary
election. In the meantime, most government figures consider Gagik
Tsarukyan as one of the main partners of that subject, which was
confirmed by Tsarukyan's statement that Kocharyan has the political
and moral right to return.
In this sense, the question occurs whether Gagik Tsarukyan's loyalty
to the coalition memorandum means that Kocharyan has given up his
political plans causing Tsarukyan not to oppose Serzh Sargsyan
because without Kocharyan's support this opposition may end up with
bad consequences.
However, would Tsarukyan be able to implement his political plans
independently from Kocharyan's plans? In other words, would it be
possible for Kocharyan to rely on Tsarukyan rather than vice versa?
Perhaps Tsarukyan made this statement because Kocharyan slowed down
or Kocharyan slowed down because Tsarukyan reiterated his commitment
to the coalition agreement. In other words, Tsarukyan admitted Serzh
Sargsyan's priority because Kocharyan decided to stop halfway but
because Kocharyan had to stop the process because Tsarukyan chose
Serzh Sargsyan's priority.
By the way, the response of the ARF Dashnaktsutyun is notable which
is also perceived as an indirect but possible political support for
Robert Kocharyan. The ARF Dashnaktsutyun is dissatisfied with the
memorandum on coalition, noting that the society rejects it. I wonder
if the ARF Dashnaktsutyun had considered the society's attitude to
the coalition when they joined the coalition.
In reality, there is an element of disappointment in ARF-D with the
Bargavach Hayastan Party. Apparently, the ARF-D expected that the
Bargavach Hayastan would continue to oppose to the Republican Party and
thereby form the "joint front for Kocharyan's return". That would boost
the political weight of the ARF-D. However, Bargavach Hayastan thwarted
these plans and deprived Kocharyan of the prospect of promoting his
plans, thereby striking the prospect of the political factor of the
ARF Dashnaktsutyun because without the Bargavach Hayastan Party,
the so-called Kocharyan front would be insecure and unviable. And if
the ARF-D is not in Kocharyan's front, it will appear in a marginal
state, trying to address the issue of getting the minimum 5% of votes
required for appearing in parliament.
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments24001.html
Published: 18:05:56 - 31/10/2011
Gagik Tsarukyan's latest interview where he actually reiterates his
loyalty to the agreements reached upon signing the memorandum on
February 17, the question occurs whether Tsarukyan's comment means
that Kocharyan gives up on his intention to participate in the
parliamentary election.
Certainly, Kocharyan did not publicly announce about such an
intention. Vardan Oskanyan, the ex-foreign minister had suggested
on his involvement, and afterwards Robert Kocharyan mentioned in an
interview that three things will make him consider return: economic
plight, public demands, ability for fundamental change.
Kocharyan's cautiousness is understood. He will not announce about
his return unless he is sure that nothing will hinder him, and he will
not stop halfway. The current conditions do not allow for optimism but
it does not mean that Kocharyan will not participate in the upcoming
parliamentary elections, at least directly.
The point is that the structure of the Armenian government is such
that it can be demolished through revolution or you must enter it from
inside. It is difficult to imagine Kocharyan and revolution together.
And to enter from inside, it is enough for Kocharyan to be interested
in the upcoming parliamentary election and try to boost his influence
on the government to reserve a chance to return.
In this sense, despite the absence of a direct and open statement,
Kocharyan would be one of the main subjects of the parliamentary
election. In the meantime, most government figures consider Gagik
Tsarukyan as one of the main partners of that subject, which was
confirmed by Tsarukyan's statement that Kocharyan has the political
and moral right to return.
In this sense, the question occurs whether Gagik Tsarukyan's loyalty
to the coalition memorandum means that Kocharyan has given up his
political plans causing Tsarukyan not to oppose Serzh Sargsyan
because without Kocharyan's support this opposition may end up with
bad consequences.
However, would Tsarukyan be able to implement his political plans
independently from Kocharyan's plans? In other words, would it be
possible for Kocharyan to rely on Tsarukyan rather than vice versa?
Perhaps Tsarukyan made this statement because Kocharyan slowed down
or Kocharyan slowed down because Tsarukyan reiterated his commitment
to the coalition agreement. In other words, Tsarukyan admitted Serzh
Sargsyan's priority because Kocharyan decided to stop halfway but
because Kocharyan had to stop the process because Tsarukyan chose
Serzh Sargsyan's priority.
By the way, the response of the ARF Dashnaktsutyun is notable which
is also perceived as an indirect but possible political support for
Robert Kocharyan. The ARF Dashnaktsutyun is dissatisfied with the
memorandum on coalition, noting that the society rejects it. I wonder
if the ARF Dashnaktsutyun had considered the society's attitude to
the coalition when they joined the coalition.
In reality, there is an element of disappointment in ARF-D with the
Bargavach Hayastan Party. Apparently, the ARF-D expected that the
Bargavach Hayastan would continue to oppose to the Republican Party and
thereby form the "joint front for Kocharyan's return". That would boost
the political weight of the ARF-D. However, Bargavach Hayastan thwarted
these plans and deprived Kocharyan of the prospect of promoting his
plans, thereby striking the prospect of the political factor of the
ARF Dashnaktsutyun because without the Bargavach Hayastan Party,
the so-called Kocharyan front would be insecure and unviable. And if
the ARF-D is not in Kocharyan's front, it will appear in a marginal
state, trying to address the issue of getting the minimum 5% of votes
required for appearing in parliament.