Tweet
IF ALIYEV OFFERS ELECTION BRIBES
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments25125.html
Published: 12:00:15 - 14/02/2012
Mesrop Harutiunyan, the head of information and campaign of the
election office of Sasun Mikaelyan nominated for the mayor of Hrazdan
Town, has announced that if Ilham Aliyev offers 100 dollars in the
presidential elections, he will be elected president of Armenia.
Mesropyan used this metaphor to describe the vicious power of election
bribes, and the low, almost zero level of voters in Armenia.
One can understand Mesropyan's fury, as well as the fury of people
who are fighting for free, fair elections, democracy and civil
rights and freedoms, and have to go through social, psychological,
physical hardship, clash with the resistance of the government, and
the election bribes in the face of the citizens accepting them with
delight, which make this resistance stronger.
But is the solution of the problem in metaphoric descriptions or
"nominating" Ilham Aliyev for president of Armenia? Hardly so. If a
citizen accepts money or in-kind assistance to make a decision on
his or her vote, it does not mean that the citizen does not do it
consciously. It means that the citizen does not believe in any other
option. One can fly into a fury, stamp his feet, call the citizens
Turks, but it is not a solution. The solution will be found as soon
as it is clear that the citizen has a choice and the citizen chooses
the bribe because the opposition does not appreciate the opposition
in terms of the prospects of their life.
Perhaps, it is worthwhile for the opposition to inquire why the
citizens appreciate it so low. It is very easy to call the citizens
Turks, venal, Aliyev's witnesses, and what not. It is easy to blame
the citizens for political inefficiency and issue a row of metaphoric
attributes after every election. It is difficult to admit that the
election bribes are the assessment of the opposition by the citizens.
In fact, it is a bad criterion but if the citizens use this criterion,
the problem is the opposition because it is the responsibility of
the political opposition to improve the election criteria.
If some people think that the citizens accepting 5000 drams and
voting for the Republican Party know the value of the state less
or there is no difference between the Republican Party and Aliyev,
they are mistaken about this mindset in particular and the tactics
in relations with the citizens.
Before the presidential elections in 2008, Sasun Mikaelyan was a
Republican and supported Serzh Sargsyan, became member of parliament
on the Republican ticket. However, by 2008 Armenia did not seem to
be a democratic country and the government was not more tolerant than
now. However, Sasun Mikaelyan was on the side of the government till
2008 and joined the opposition only after Ter-Petrosyan's return.
Why was Mikaelyan on the side of the Republican Party and the
government until 2008? He did not support the opposition and fair
elections. The parliamentary election in 2007 when the Republicans
gained absolute majority was the period of blossoming election bribes.
At that time, Sasun Mikaelyan was not with the Impeachment Bloc, the
People's Party of Armenia, he was with the Republican Party. Perhaps
because he did not know the value of democracy then or did not
understand the vice of the election bribes or simply did not believe
the opposition could achieve these things.
In what way did Mikaelyan in 2008 differ from the voters of Hrazdan
in 2012? In fact, in no way. Only at that time the election bribe he
offered was bigger - property and seat in parliament.
But will it occur to anyone to say that if it were needed to cooperate
with Aliyev, Mikaelyan would? Will it occur to anyone to doubt
Mikaelyan's patriotism?
So why do they doubt the patriotism of other citizens who, unlike
Sasun, continue to support the government and cannot find in the
opposition what Sasun Mikaelyan found in the opposition in 2008,
as well as many more other people who used to support the government.
To defeat this vice it is necessary to try to identify the causes and
set to eliminate them, forgetting about the emotional assessments. It
will thus be possible to change the criteria and landmarks for the
citizens, as they changed for most activists in February 2008.
From: A. Papazian
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments25125.html
Published: 12:00:15 - 14/02/2012
Mesrop Harutiunyan, the head of information and campaign of the
election office of Sasun Mikaelyan nominated for the mayor of Hrazdan
Town, has announced that if Ilham Aliyev offers 100 dollars in the
presidential elections, he will be elected president of Armenia.
Mesropyan used this metaphor to describe the vicious power of election
bribes, and the low, almost zero level of voters in Armenia.
One can understand Mesropyan's fury, as well as the fury of people
who are fighting for free, fair elections, democracy and civil
rights and freedoms, and have to go through social, psychological,
physical hardship, clash with the resistance of the government, and
the election bribes in the face of the citizens accepting them with
delight, which make this resistance stronger.
But is the solution of the problem in metaphoric descriptions or
"nominating" Ilham Aliyev for president of Armenia? Hardly so. If a
citizen accepts money or in-kind assistance to make a decision on
his or her vote, it does not mean that the citizen does not do it
consciously. It means that the citizen does not believe in any other
option. One can fly into a fury, stamp his feet, call the citizens
Turks, but it is not a solution. The solution will be found as soon
as it is clear that the citizen has a choice and the citizen chooses
the bribe because the opposition does not appreciate the opposition
in terms of the prospects of their life.
Perhaps, it is worthwhile for the opposition to inquire why the
citizens appreciate it so low. It is very easy to call the citizens
Turks, venal, Aliyev's witnesses, and what not. It is easy to blame
the citizens for political inefficiency and issue a row of metaphoric
attributes after every election. It is difficult to admit that the
election bribes are the assessment of the opposition by the citizens.
In fact, it is a bad criterion but if the citizens use this criterion,
the problem is the opposition because it is the responsibility of
the political opposition to improve the election criteria.
If some people think that the citizens accepting 5000 drams and
voting for the Republican Party know the value of the state less
or there is no difference between the Republican Party and Aliyev,
they are mistaken about this mindset in particular and the tactics
in relations with the citizens.
Before the presidential elections in 2008, Sasun Mikaelyan was a
Republican and supported Serzh Sargsyan, became member of parliament
on the Republican ticket. However, by 2008 Armenia did not seem to
be a democratic country and the government was not more tolerant than
now. However, Sasun Mikaelyan was on the side of the government till
2008 and joined the opposition only after Ter-Petrosyan's return.
Why was Mikaelyan on the side of the Republican Party and the
government until 2008? He did not support the opposition and fair
elections. The parliamentary election in 2007 when the Republicans
gained absolute majority was the period of blossoming election bribes.
At that time, Sasun Mikaelyan was not with the Impeachment Bloc, the
People's Party of Armenia, he was with the Republican Party. Perhaps
because he did not know the value of democracy then or did not
understand the vice of the election bribes or simply did not believe
the opposition could achieve these things.
In what way did Mikaelyan in 2008 differ from the voters of Hrazdan
in 2012? In fact, in no way. Only at that time the election bribe he
offered was bigger - property and seat in parliament.
But will it occur to anyone to say that if it were needed to cooperate
with Aliyev, Mikaelyan would? Will it occur to anyone to doubt
Mikaelyan's patriotism?
So why do they doubt the patriotism of other citizens who, unlike
Sasun, continue to support the government and cannot find in the
opposition what Sasun Mikaelyan found in the opposition in 2008,
as well as many more other people who used to support the government.
To defeat this vice it is necessary to try to identify the causes and
set to eliminate them, forgetting about the emotional assessments. It
will thus be possible to change the criteria and landmarks for the
citizens, as they changed for most activists in February 2008.
From: A. Papazian