Tweet
The Skeleton In The Cupboard
Haik Aramyan
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/comments/view/28089
Comments - Saturday, 17 November 2012, 16:24
The second president Robert Kocharyan's recent statements have
interesting implications. They may shed a light on a number of
developments of the past decade and uncover their logic. In addition,
it will not be limited to Armenia.
This is highly important, considering that Kocharyan's presidency was
full of controversial and violent developments. On the one hand,
Kocharyan fought away anarchy and chaos and boosted the economy. On
the other hand, a tough political and business hierarchy was
established in the country with clear arrangements of quotas and areas
of responsibility. Two tragedies marked his presidency. Besides,
almost the entire resource of Armenia was handed over to Russia.
The first of Kocharyan's statements referred to 1 March 2008.
According to him, the place where people were murdered was not
controlled by either the government or the opposition.
The next important statement was made on the parliamentary government.
Kocharyan said he is sorry for not having been able to ensure
elimination of the majority voting system. `For a simple reason - the
government wanted to keep the single-member districts as an
advantage,' he said, highlighting the reluctance of the government to
eliminate the majority voting system.
These two statements allow for deliberation. Kocharyan was perceived
as an authoritarian leader who made decisions alone and controlled all
the processes. However, the statements he made change the image he had
as a president.
Who held power in Armenia, what happened on October 27 and March 1,
why was the country's resource handed over to Russia? Neither
Kocharyan, nor others who know answer this question. The think-tanks
have circulated quite logical and substantial schemes, and Kocharyan's
statements actually `complete' those schemes.
On the eve of October 27 the Unity Alliance which won the
parliamentary election set to review the foreign policy of Armenia and
establish closer political and economic relations with the West.
Important arrangements were made during the visits of Speaker Karen
Demirchyan and Prime Minister Vazgen Sargsyan to the United States.
However, following the tragedy Moscow announced that Russia's friends
were killed. And the Russian channels hinted that the terrorist attack
was backed by Kocharyan. The Russian campaign against Kocharyan found
a lot of supporters in Armenia via the pro-All-Armenian Movement media
outlets. Then Russia launched a clear expansion towards Armenia,
gradually getting hold of the important infrastructures and facilities
of the country.
In 2006 Kocharyan facilitated the creation of the Prosperous Armenia
Party. Then the party was said to be a `Western' project with a
provision in its charter to integrate with the EU and NATO. The PAP
was expected to win the parliamentary election and nominate Vartan
Oskanian for the presidential election in 2008. In the context of the
PAP, the president's administration spoke about fundamental reforms,
Vartan Oskanian and Vahram Nersisyants particularly made speeches on
this.
However, the RPA won the parliamentary election of 2007 while
Kocharyan had to visit the RPA office at midnight of the Election Day
and congratulate. In 2008, though with delay, Kocharyan stated to
support Serzh Sargsyan. On 1 March 2008 the demonstrators were shot,
and since then Armenia has had to sign humiliating military agreements
with Russia.
Kocharyan's statements were preceded by press reports that at the
place where people were shot conversations in North Caucasian
languages were heard. Later some Armenian officials hinted that such
cases cannot be revealed now that Armenia lacks sufficient importance
and power. The hint is on an intervention.
Certainly, this is not a justification for the government and for
Kocharyan. The society does not care. The society needs a leader who
will be able to keep the country from destructive interventions.
By the way, the government is again trying to review the `traditional
schemes' of the foreign policy of Armenia. The governments of Armenia
cannot avoid this but the problem is whether this process will again
be foiled externally and what methods will be used.
In this context, independent from their purpose, Kocharyan's
statements bring a positive tendency towards clarification of a number
of circumstances to the society. This would be Kocharyan's useful
input to Armenia because apart from physical destruction those
circumstances are an unbearable psychological burden for the society
and it has been unable to straight its back for decades.
Haik Aramyan
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/comments/view/28089
Comments - Saturday, 17 November 2012, 16:24
The second president Robert Kocharyan's recent statements have
interesting implications. They may shed a light on a number of
developments of the past decade and uncover their logic. In addition,
it will not be limited to Armenia.
This is highly important, considering that Kocharyan's presidency was
full of controversial and violent developments. On the one hand,
Kocharyan fought away anarchy and chaos and boosted the economy. On
the other hand, a tough political and business hierarchy was
established in the country with clear arrangements of quotas and areas
of responsibility. Two tragedies marked his presidency. Besides,
almost the entire resource of Armenia was handed over to Russia.
The first of Kocharyan's statements referred to 1 March 2008.
According to him, the place where people were murdered was not
controlled by either the government or the opposition.
The next important statement was made on the parliamentary government.
Kocharyan said he is sorry for not having been able to ensure
elimination of the majority voting system. `For a simple reason - the
government wanted to keep the single-member districts as an
advantage,' he said, highlighting the reluctance of the government to
eliminate the majority voting system.
These two statements allow for deliberation. Kocharyan was perceived
as an authoritarian leader who made decisions alone and controlled all
the processes. However, the statements he made change the image he had
as a president.
Who held power in Armenia, what happened on October 27 and March 1,
why was the country's resource handed over to Russia? Neither
Kocharyan, nor others who know answer this question. The think-tanks
have circulated quite logical and substantial schemes, and Kocharyan's
statements actually `complete' those schemes.
On the eve of October 27 the Unity Alliance which won the
parliamentary election set to review the foreign policy of Armenia and
establish closer political and economic relations with the West.
Important arrangements were made during the visits of Speaker Karen
Demirchyan and Prime Minister Vazgen Sargsyan to the United States.
However, following the tragedy Moscow announced that Russia's friends
were killed. And the Russian channels hinted that the terrorist attack
was backed by Kocharyan. The Russian campaign against Kocharyan found
a lot of supporters in Armenia via the pro-All-Armenian Movement media
outlets. Then Russia launched a clear expansion towards Armenia,
gradually getting hold of the important infrastructures and facilities
of the country.
In 2006 Kocharyan facilitated the creation of the Prosperous Armenia
Party. Then the party was said to be a `Western' project with a
provision in its charter to integrate with the EU and NATO. The PAP
was expected to win the parliamentary election and nominate Vartan
Oskanian for the presidential election in 2008. In the context of the
PAP, the president's administration spoke about fundamental reforms,
Vartan Oskanian and Vahram Nersisyants particularly made speeches on
this.
However, the RPA won the parliamentary election of 2007 while
Kocharyan had to visit the RPA office at midnight of the Election Day
and congratulate. In 2008, though with delay, Kocharyan stated to
support Serzh Sargsyan. On 1 March 2008 the demonstrators were shot,
and since then Armenia has had to sign humiliating military agreements
with Russia.
Kocharyan's statements were preceded by press reports that at the
place where people were shot conversations in North Caucasian
languages were heard. Later some Armenian officials hinted that such
cases cannot be revealed now that Armenia lacks sufficient importance
and power. The hint is on an intervention.
Certainly, this is not a justification for the government and for
Kocharyan. The society does not care. The society needs a leader who
will be able to keep the country from destructive interventions.
By the way, the government is again trying to review the `traditional
schemes' of the foreign policy of Armenia. The governments of Armenia
cannot avoid this but the problem is whether this process will again
be foiled externally and what methods will be used.
In this context, independent from their purpose, Kocharyan's
statements bring a positive tendency towards clarification of a number
of circumstances to the society. This would be Kocharyan's useful
input to Armenia because apart from physical destruction those
circumstances are an unbearable psychological burden for the society
and it has been unable to straight its back for decades.