Tweet
Whom Kocharyan's Property Attracts?
Naira Hayrumyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments27137.html
Published: 13:19:49 - 21/08/2012
Regnum published Ruben Grdzelyan's article in which he states that
Robert Kocharyan left taking along his `shadow' which, according to
some data, is almost the half of the Armenian economy.
This serious accusation has not yet been rejected either by the
government or by Robert Kocharyan's office. Though, earlier, Kocharyan
used to file numerous claims against journalists accusing them of
slander.
How serious is this accusation? What is the real economic situation in
Armenia? Is there clear information on the amount of the `shadow' and
of how it is managed? When seeking answers to these questions, we may
come to the conclusion that only the government is possible to have
such information, which, evidently is trying to deprive Robert
Kocharyan of the economic resource.
Without arguing and disagreeing with the governmental numbers, we
should note that in Armenia, apparently, they are trying to
redistribute property. The change of power in countries like Armenia,
where the business is out of law, is followed by the redistribution of
the property. After Robert Kocharyan's departure in 2008, it didn't
happen. The reasons should be found out: either Serzh Sargsyan didn't
have enough power to seize from Kocharyan and his supporters the
colossal resource, or Sargsyan hoped to come to terms with Kocharyan
on the `second term', so he didn't want to ruin relations with him, or
perhaps, they have common resources.
Anyway, the sensational information that Kocharyan manages the shadow
half of the Armenian economy means the redistribution may start now.
So, soon, we should wait for proves for the sensational statement.
Despite Tigran Sargsyan's attempts, Armenia is still one of the closed
countries of the world. No one knows about the people's condition
here, whether there are billionaires in the country, and the most
important is how the wealth has been accumulated. So, Robert Kocharyan
can calmly appeal against newspapers affirming he collected 4 billion
during the four years of tenure. How do you know that, justly asks
Kocharyan, naturally, getting no answer.
Under such conditions, the `disclosure' of the scales of Kocharyan's
wealth, if the latter decides to run for president, can hardly be
called a political event or anti-corruption fight. This is a banal
redistribution of property which leads to the shift of the property
from one to another owner. For the state and society, this will change
nothing so there is no need to be happy about the talks on the `shadow
of the ex-president'.
We may be happy only in one case: if the state decides to nationalize
the illegally accumulated wealth, national richness which is used
exceptionally for the interests of certain individuals.
Nationalization is a very painful process, but it will hardly be
possible to legitimize the economy without it.
Once in Karabakh the huge confiscated house of the former minister of
defense Samvel Babayan was rendered a kindergarten. This was an
unprecedented step, no one disagreed, even Samvel Babayan himself
because the disputed property served for the children and the nation.
Armenia, if they started talking about the shadow of ex-presidents and
intentions to return the `stolen', should learn from Karabakh and
develop a realistic and ambitious plan to nationalize the illegally
stolen goods. The first step, perhaps, should be the nationalization
of the mineral resources, and it can not only fill the state budget,
but also deprive some people of major economic resource in politics.
However, we have to speak about politics in Armenia with great
reserve. If originally politics is the art of influence on the
development of state and society, in Armenia, politics has degenerated
into looting the state and protecting their property.
Naira Hayrumyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments27137.html
Published: 13:19:49 - 21/08/2012
Regnum published Ruben Grdzelyan's article in which he states that
Robert Kocharyan left taking along his `shadow' which, according to
some data, is almost the half of the Armenian economy.
This serious accusation has not yet been rejected either by the
government or by Robert Kocharyan's office. Though, earlier, Kocharyan
used to file numerous claims against journalists accusing them of
slander.
How serious is this accusation? What is the real economic situation in
Armenia? Is there clear information on the amount of the `shadow' and
of how it is managed? When seeking answers to these questions, we may
come to the conclusion that only the government is possible to have
such information, which, evidently is trying to deprive Robert
Kocharyan of the economic resource.
Without arguing and disagreeing with the governmental numbers, we
should note that in Armenia, apparently, they are trying to
redistribute property. The change of power in countries like Armenia,
where the business is out of law, is followed by the redistribution of
the property. After Robert Kocharyan's departure in 2008, it didn't
happen. The reasons should be found out: either Serzh Sargsyan didn't
have enough power to seize from Kocharyan and his supporters the
colossal resource, or Sargsyan hoped to come to terms with Kocharyan
on the `second term', so he didn't want to ruin relations with him, or
perhaps, they have common resources.
Anyway, the sensational information that Kocharyan manages the shadow
half of the Armenian economy means the redistribution may start now.
So, soon, we should wait for proves for the sensational statement.
Despite Tigran Sargsyan's attempts, Armenia is still one of the closed
countries of the world. No one knows about the people's condition
here, whether there are billionaires in the country, and the most
important is how the wealth has been accumulated. So, Robert Kocharyan
can calmly appeal against newspapers affirming he collected 4 billion
during the four years of tenure. How do you know that, justly asks
Kocharyan, naturally, getting no answer.
Under such conditions, the `disclosure' of the scales of Kocharyan's
wealth, if the latter decides to run for president, can hardly be
called a political event or anti-corruption fight. This is a banal
redistribution of property which leads to the shift of the property
from one to another owner. For the state and society, this will change
nothing so there is no need to be happy about the talks on the `shadow
of the ex-president'.
We may be happy only in one case: if the state decides to nationalize
the illegally accumulated wealth, national richness which is used
exceptionally for the interests of certain individuals.
Nationalization is a very painful process, but it will hardly be
possible to legitimize the economy without it.
Once in Karabakh the huge confiscated house of the former minister of
defense Samvel Babayan was rendered a kindergarten. This was an
unprecedented step, no one disagreed, even Samvel Babayan himself
because the disputed property served for the children and the nation.
Armenia, if they started talking about the shadow of ex-presidents and
intentions to return the `stolen', should learn from Karabakh and
develop a realistic and ambitious plan to nationalize the illegally
stolen goods. The first step, perhaps, should be the nationalization
of the mineral resources, and it can not only fill the state budget,
but also deprive some people of major economic resource in politics.
However, we have to speak about politics in Armenia with great
reserve. If originally politics is the art of influence on the
development of state and society, in Armenia, politics has degenerated
into looting the state and protecting their property.