Tweet
RETRO. MOMENT OF CHOICE
August 16 2013
What should tomorrow's Armenia look like? More liberal, more democratic
than today: we will all answer unanimously. The main political forces,
with few exceptions, are in favor of these principles verbally. We
often speak of human rights and civil society.
The cases of violations are recorded in the media, and those who feel
insulted in this respect, make great efforts so that the figures in the
West provide appropriate assessments to Armenia. Of course, this can be
considered as a major diplomatic and advocacy victory. If the purpose
of such figures or parties is to provide international organizations
(let's say, the UN) against Armenia, then we can recommend them to
closely cooperate with Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Although the probability of success is little, because there are no
innocent people even in the West, and the international organizations
are well aware of what's going on and where. But the infinite love to
the West, as well as democracy, liberalism and human rights, glistening
from time to time, rests on the general "ideological" background. And
they (the "ideas") have exactly the opposite direction. And as a
reminder, let's mention some of them, liberate our country from the
western liberalism diseases, unite around national ideology, the "human
rights" concept was invented by Jews and masonneres, no to machinations
of international imperialism, and so on and so forth. Perhaps any
of opposite principles should be selected, and build the policy from
that percpective. This duality has an objective nature, and is typical
almost to all (not just the opposition) political streams. But the
most prominent example to this respect is the AR Federation. When
it is said that it is a structure that cannot be called a party in
the sense of literally classical or western, the members of ARF get
offended arguing that parliamentarism is in their blood. When it is
said that it is common part for Armenia, one out of 47, they are also
offended, claiming that ARF is an anti-Armenian structure, and it is
not going to obey any laws of any Armenia. Again, the issue of choice
is raised, either to deny, or to adopt certain rules (yes, universal,
yes, developed in the West) of the game. And all political forces,
the whole of our society should answer this question. It is a fact
that Armenia does not meet given standards. It is a fact that we have
not yet built a democratic state, as, especially, the authorities
sometimes succumb to temptation to resolve the issues in a style
of previous regime. But it is also obvious that no one could do it
anymore. Hence, irrevocable changes took place.
Aram Abrahamyan, 21.03.1995
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/08/16/156040/
From: Baghdasarian
August 16 2013
What should tomorrow's Armenia look like? More liberal, more democratic
than today: we will all answer unanimously. The main political forces,
with few exceptions, are in favor of these principles verbally. We
often speak of human rights and civil society.
The cases of violations are recorded in the media, and those who feel
insulted in this respect, make great efforts so that the figures in the
West provide appropriate assessments to Armenia. Of course, this can be
considered as a major diplomatic and advocacy victory. If the purpose
of such figures or parties is to provide international organizations
(let's say, the UN) against Armenia, then we can recommend them to
closely cooperate with Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Although the probability of success is little, because there are no
innocent people even in the West, and the international organizations
are well aware of what's going on and where. But the infinite love to
the West, as well as democracy, liberalism and human rights, glistening
from time to time, rests on the general "ideological" background. And
they (the "ideas") have exactly the opposite direction. And as a
reminder, let's mention some of them, liberate our country from the
western liberalism diseases, unite around national ideology, the "human
rights" concept was invented by Jews and masonneres, no to machinations
of international imperialism, and so on and so forth. Perhaps any
of opposite principles should be selected, and build the policy from
that percpective. This duality has an objective nature, and is typical
almost to all (not just the opposition) political streams. But the
most prominent example to this respect is the AR Federation. When
it is said that it is a structure that cannot be called a party in
the sense of literally classical or western, the members of ARF get
offended arguing that parliamentarism is in their blood. When it is
said that it is common part for Armenia, one out of 47, they are also
offended, claiming that ARF is an anti-Armenian structure, and it is
not going to obey any laws of any Armenia. Again, the issue of choice
is raised, either to deny, or to adopt certain rules (yes, universal,
yes, developed in the West) of the game. And all political forces,
the whole of our society should answer this question. It is a fact
that Armenia does not meet given standards. It is a fact that we have
not yet built a democratic state, as, especially, the authorities
sometimes succumb to temptation to resolve the issues in a style
of previous regime. But it is also obvious that no one could do it
anymore. Hence, irrevocable changes took place.
Aram Abrahamyan, 21.03.1995
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/08/16/156040/
From: Baghdasarian