Tweet
We Understood Free Armenian Is To Come
Siranuysh Papyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview25573.html
Published: 13:02:40 - 26/03/2012
Interview with political scientist Nvard Manasyan
The party lists and nominations for precincts have been published.
Were Serzh Sargsyan's assurances sincere that no oligarch would enter
the next parliament?
There is no need to expect radical changes since there are no premises
but apparently we will witness new trends in the form of people in
parliament who are adequate for the functions of the parliament and
can go beyond the party interests. Such people are included into the
party lists of several forces.
New qualities are going to the parliament, which try to overcome
the current silence and obedience. For example, I don't know the
representatives of the parliamentary majority who adopted the law on
language. This image will gradually be worn out and replaced since
they proved that they don't understand the meaning of lawmaking.
What does Serzh Sargsyan's slogan "Believe to change" mean?
Serzh Sargsyan's speech at the RPA congress contained tones that
could influence people emotionally. But trust as a political term is
a very dangerous phenomenon inherent to the Middle Ages when there
was no society to establish the sovereignty of power, and it begins
to seek for legitimacy by referring to the authority vested in him
by God. It is possible to believe in something invisible, intangible.
Politicians should not believe but trust, but in order to trust they
need premises, signs, promises that they are sincerely committed to
change. But since there is no wish for reconstruction, we are asked to
believe and get to the abstract plane. It is much more dangerous than
what happened during the Nazi regime which tried to build a platform
for mystical power, and the procession with the Nazi "symbolism"
in Yerevan is very symptomatic. They occurred in parallel to Serzh
Sargsyan's appeals to believe. But in fact, attempts to politicize the
Church, associate it with the state may have disastrous consequences.
Has Serzh Sargsyan been able to build up confidence in these 4 years?
Even taking into account the argument on the global crisis, we need
to state that the policy of the government and attempts to modernize
governance don't give any reasons for trust. The system of governance
became so self-sufficient that it broke off the reality and set to
self-reproduction. For trust, certain communications are necessary
to help me see that I'm not deceived. But unfortunately, they keep
deceiving us all the time.
Interesting events are happening in Mashtots Park. Can civil protests
grow into a green movement which will claim representation in the
parliament?
Civil groups are the messengers of freedom which are leading Armenia
through transformation. In the world, economic movements have
grown into parties but this happened after a lot of years of civil
activities, until they understood they should be represented in the
parliament. Perhaps these initiatives will grow into a movement but
it is not ruled out that the parties will not be able to include this
agenda into their political programs, and then they will enter into
political fight.
The civil movement, unlike the political one, is meaningful. Here
the right seems to be getting materialized. The public interest also
stops being abstract. In Armenia, there will be no North Avenue under
the cloak of public interest.
Are there parties based on public claims rather than business?
I think there are not. ARFD has been constringed in the past few
years to limit the circle of its activities due to the lack of
self-determined citizens. In Armenia, as a rule, it is difficult to
define the ideological content of the parties mainly because people
rejected politics, not understanding that they are in it anyway,
but in this case, only as a tool of politics and not a subject.
The second issue is the lack of discussion to reach the truth rather
than prove rightness. Now, it is necessary to find solutions, and if
the liberals prove their rightness, we will accept liberal decisions.
The state is not a museum exhibit. All of us need to "touch it",
change it but we need to communicate for this.
Just one serves the state and gets a salary being responsible, and
the others act as clients, beneficiaries. Here, the government takes
no obligation but the right to be master. Meanwhile, the master of
the country should be a consolidated, sovereign citizen.
In 1988 we solved the issue of the independence of Armenia but the
problem of freedom remained unsolved. The Soviet people did not know
that there is freedom, it is often confused with permissiveness. But
the right formula says that freedom has its continuation, and these
effects should be planned, viewing them from the perspective of
community life.
We understood 'anti-state' by freedom, and now came the output of
the free Armenian. He is already in Armenia, and he understands that
there is freedom of his own "self".
Siranuysh Papyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview25573.html
Published: 13:02:40 - 26/03/2012
Interview with political scientist Nvard Manasyan
The party lists and nominations for precincts have been published.
Were Serzh Sargsyan's assurances sincere that no oligarch would enter
the next parliament?
There is no need to expect radical changes since there are no premises
but apparently we will witness new trends in the form of people in
parliament who are adequate for the functions of the parliament and
can go beyond the party interests. Such people are included into the
party lists of several forces.
New qualities are going to the parliament, which try to overcome
the current silence and obedience. For example, I don't know the
representatives of the parliamentary majority who adopted the law on
language. This image will gradually be worn out and replaced since
they proved that they don't understand the meaning of lawmaking.
What does Serzh Sargsyan's slogan "Believe to change" mean?
Serzh Sargsyan's speech at the RPA congress contained tones that
could influence people emotionally. But trust as a political term is
a very dangerous phenomenon inherent to the Middle Ages when there
was no society to establish the sovereignty of power, and it begins
to seek for legitimacy by referring to the authority vested in him
by God. It is possible to believe in something invisible, intangible.
Politicians should not believe but trust, but in order to trust they
need premises, signs, promises that they are sincerely committed to
change. But since there is no wish for reconstruction, we are asked to
believe and get to the abstract plane. It is much more dangerous than
what happened during the Nazi regime which tried to build a platform
for mystical power, and the procession with the Nazi "symbolism"
in Yerevan is very symptomatic. They occurred in parallel to Serzh
Sargsyan's appeals to believe. But in fact, attempts to politicize the
Church, associate it with the state may have disastrous consequences.
Has Serzh Sargsyan been able to build up confidence in these 4 years?
Even taking into account the argument on the global crisis, we need
to state that the policy of the government and attempts to modernize
governance don't give any reasons for trust. The system of governance
became so self-sufficient that it broke off the reality and set to
self-reproduction. For trust, certain communications are necessary
to help me see that I'm not deceived. But unfortunately, they keep
deceiving us all the time.
Interesting events are happening in Mashtots Park. Can civil protests
grow into a green movement which will claim representation in the
parliament?
Civil groups are the messengers of freedom which are leading Armenia
through transformation. In the world, economic movements have
grown into parties but this happened after a lot of years of civil
activities, until they understood they should be represented in the
parliament. Perhaps these initiatives will grow into a movement but
it is not ruled out that the parties will not be able to include this
agenda into their political programs, and then they will enter into
political fight.
The civil movement, unlike the political one, is meaningful. Here
the right seems to be getting materialized. The public interest also
stops being abstract. In Armenia, there will be no North Avenue under
the cloak of public interest.
Are there parties based on public claims rather than business?
I think there are not. ARFD has been constringed in the past few
years to limit the circle of its activities due to the lack of
self-determined citizens. In Armenia, as a rule, it is difficult to
define the ideological content of the parties mainly because people
rejected politics, not understanding that they are in it anyway,
but in this case, only as a tool of politics and not a subject.
The second issue is the lack of discussion to reach the truth rather
than prove rightness. Now, it is necessary to find solutions, and if
the liberals prove their rightness, we will accept liberal decisions.
The state is not a museum exhibit. All of us need to "touch it",
change it but we need to communicate for this.
Just one serves the state and gets a salary being responsible, and
the others act as clients, beneficiaries. Here, the government takes
no obligation but the right to be master. Meanwhile, the master of
the country should be a consolidated, sovereign citizen.
In 1988 we solved the issue of the independence of Armenia but the
problem of freedom remained unsolved. The Soviet people did not know
that there is freedom, it is often confused with permissiveness. But
the right formula says that freedom has its continuation, and these
effects should be planned, viewing them from the perspective of
community life.
We understood 'anti-state' by freedom, and now came the output of
the free Armenian. He is already in Armenia, and he understands that
there is freedom of his own "self".