Tweet
HOW MANY SEATS WILL THE POWER GIVE TO THE ANC?
Siranuysh Papyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview25842.html
Published: 11:24:01 - 17/04/2012
Interview with Hranush Kharatyan, ethnographer, on election
developments
You have spoken about the deep political marsh and the society's
disappointment with the elections many times in these four years. What
do you think about the current election processes?
There is no surprise and almost not evident competition, sure,
not taking into account, (I personally don't) the weak, uncertain
situation around the PAP and ANC talks, let's not call it an agreement,
but some talks which arouse a feeling of uncertainty and panic. There
are no election developments besides this phenomenon.
What panic do you mean?
Panic has two meanings: it is evident that the ANC has been recently
losing the possibility, the form and the prospect of being radical
opposition. For two years, so much uncertainty has been introduced
into the political field about the ANC that people stopped considering
the ANC opposition and started guessing whether the power will give
posts to the ANC or not. If four years ago up to the last autumn,
I was sure that the ANC would win 10-15 seats on its own and could
be a serious competitor to the authorities, now, I keep thinking how
many seats the power will give to the ANC. In these conditions, the
ANC-PAP union also displays the lack of any intensive and radical
opposition in Armenia. Prosperous Armenia can't be opposition, it
pretends to the strengthening of its positions and to the conquering
of the political field.
What is the reason of the Congress's failure?
I think the serious oscillation happened in the period of the
signing of the Armenian-Turkish protocols. The ANC did not show any
radical position stating that actually Serzh Sargsyan was right
to sign the protocols. Here everything started not because ANC
agreed with the authorities, but because it was about the Armenian
and Turkish relations, which is a sensitive topic which matured
during Ter-Petrosyan's tenure. So, here, the ANC agreed with the
authorities on such an important foreign political issue. Moreover,
I see that there was the demand on a clear assessment and analyses of
the activities of the power (I would not like to use the word "crime"
but it was a criminal act, I mean a well-thought out one against the
society), but it has never been done, except for the poor statement by
Hrant Bagratyan which was uncertain. Bagratyan's economic analyses on
the economic policy of the government are grounded but I have always
been sure that the roots of the current situation were laid during
the tenure of the first president.
But everyone is saying the parliament of that period was different
from the current one in terms of the quality, intellectual level,
freedom of speech and so on.
Sure, before 1996, despite the war, when the conditions in the country
were objectively hard plus the subjective political conditions,
all that could be called newly formed economic system, collapsed
and the understanding of "you are my brother, you are my friend, the
country is yours, go and reign" was set, which, unfortunately, still
exists and suffocates the economic initiative. The key issues were set
during Supreme Council rule which had liberal, democratic and devoted
parliamentary corps. The members of the first parliament of Armenia
were people, who knew what they wanted, but they had no experience and
the situation was uncertain since they didn't know how to work. There
wasn't the balance between knowing what they want and how to do that
was not provided either in the second parliament. But this issue
of knowing what they want is the main direction of activities of
the next parliaments - I'm a parliamentary member and I come here
to solve my problems. This feature is clearly seen when reading the
interviews of parliamentary candidates: they say they know what to
do, but they could do that out of the parliament too. Why do they
want to enter the parliament? Do they have a political program and
a political orientation?
Siranuysh Papyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview25842.html
Published: 11:24:01 - 17/04/2012
Interview with Hranush Kharatyan, ethnographer, on election
developments
You have spoken about the deep political marsh and the society's
disappointment with the elections many times in these four years. What
do you think about the current election processes?
There is no surprise and almost not evident competition, sure,
not taking into account, (I personally don't) the weak, uncertain
situation around the PAP and ANC talks, let's not call it an agreement,
but some talks which arouse a feeling of uncertainty and panic. There
are no election developments besides this phenomenon.
What panic do you mean?
Panic has two meanings: it is evident that the ANC has been recently
losing the possibility, the form and the prospect of being radical
opposition. For two years, so much uncertainty has been introduced
into the political field about the ANC that people stopped considering
the ANC opposition and started guessing whether the power will give
posts to the ANC or not. If four years ago up to the last autumn,
I was sure that the ANC would win 10-15 seats on its own and could
be a serious competitor to the authorities, now, I keep thinking how
many seats the power will give to the ANC. In these conditions, the
ANC-PAP union also displays the lack of any intensive and radical
opposition in Armenia. Prosperous Armenia can't be opposition, it
pretends to the strengthening of its positions and to the conquering
of the political field.
What is the reason of the Congress's failure?
I think the serious oscillation happened in the period of the
signing of the Armenian-Turkish protocols. The ANC did not show any
radical position stating that actually Serzh Sargsyan was right
to sign the protocols. Here everything started not because ANC
agreed with the authorities, but because it was about the Armenian
and Turkish relations, which is a sensitive topic which matured
during Ter-Petrosyan's tenure. So, here, the ANC agreed with the
authorities on such an important foreign political issue. Moreover,
I see that there was the demand on a clear assessment and analyses of
the activities of the power (I would not like to use the word "crime"
but it was a criminal act, I mean a well-thought out one against the
society), but it has never been done, except for the poor statement by
Hrant Bagratyan which was uncertain. Bagratyan's economic analyses on
the economic policy of the government are grounded but I have always
been sure that the roots of the current situation were laid during
the tenure of the first president.
But everyone is saying the parliament of that period was different
from the current one in terms of the quality, intellectual level,
freedom of speech and so on.
Sure, before 1996, despite the war, when the conditions in the country
were objectively hard plus the subjective political conditions,
all that could be called newly formed economic system, collapsed
and the understanding of "you are my brother, you are my friend, the
country is yours, go and reign" was set, which, unfortunately, still
exists and suffocates the economic initiative. The key issues were set
during Supreme Council rule which had liberal, democratic and devoted
parliamentary corps. The members of the first parliament of Armenia
were people, who knew what they wanted, but they had no experience and
the situation was uncertain since they didn't know how to work. There
wasn't the balance between knowing what they want and how to do that
was not provided either in the second parliament. But this issue
of knowing what they want is the main direction of activities of
the next parliaments - I'm a parliamentary member and I come here
to solve my problems. This feature is clearly seen when reading the
interviews of parliamentary candidates: they say they know what to
do, but they could do that out of the parliament too. Why do they
want to enter the parliament? Do they have a political program and
a political orientation?