Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Self-Governed Movement And Raffi's Three Steps

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Self-Governed Movement And Raffi's Three Steps

    THE SELF-GOVERNED MOVEMENT AND RAFFI'S THREE STEPS
    Armen Arakelyan

    http://hetq.am/eng/news/23826/the-self-governed-movement-and-raffis-three-steps.html
    18:17, February 25, 2013

    During his tete-a-tete meeting with President Serzh Sargsyan, Raffi
    Hovannisian offered three proposals in order to emerge from the created
    political pre-crisis situation, and all three proposals were rejected.

    Hovannisian didn't discuss those proposals with the people gathered
    in Liberty Square. Those proposals belonged to him, perhaps also to
    his Heritage party, but not the people at the rally. It is hard to
    say whether the people would approve those proposals if they were
    previously discussed and formulated in Liberty Square. Although one
    of three proposals was capitulating for the authorities, the other
    two showed willingness to compromise.

    Hovannisian went to the Presidential Palace without even clarifying
    whether his followers were ready for any compromise with the
    authorities.

    But the demonstrators let it go. Moreover, they didn't leave Liberty
    Square even after Hovannisian suggested that everyone go home and
    gather the following day. Those people clearly demonstrated that
    it is not them that follow Hovannisian; they forced him to follow
    them. And it is not Heritage that determines the basic rules of the
    game, but Liberty Square.

    Thus, this is not Hovannisian's movement, but that of the people. And
    that is the clear difference between this movement and all previous
    protests that were similar.

    Now the people are demanding from the authorities as much as from
    Hovannisian. If it were important for the people, they would demand
    that Hovannisian clarify what Sargsyan in his turn proposed to him and
    to what extent those proposals were acceptable or not. Yet there are
    no questions, there is only a process, and Hovannisian was continuously
    forced to go forward.

    Actually, he didn't become a leader, but rather a symbol whose values
    and, more importantly, simplicity created a wonderful atmosphere
    for society's self-expression. Hovannisian emphasizes the union of
    Armenian citizen and Armenia, not the concept of social stratification.

    It is more than obvious now that Hovannisian's possible retreat cannot
    stop this movement. It can be modified, transformed, become diminished,
    but it cannot stop anymore. And there are two main reasons. First, this
    movement is led by an already existing civil consciousness. Second,
    instead of suppressing this awareness and pushing his personal
    ambitions forward, Hovannisian shows a tendency to rely on that.

    This fact enables the development of a strategy exclusively based on
    public demands, which are for now attached to voting rights.

    Hovannisian's main problem is not how to lead that movement (actually,
    it is self-governed for now), but to provide a greater space for
    its development, partially coordinate it and control and develop
    mechanisms to protect it from possible provocations.

    In this sense, Hovannisian has three important steps to take. First,
    he needs to clearly determine the main goal and what measures are
    necessary to get there. It is one thing to request the president
    transfer power unconditionally, and it is another thing to demand
    new elections or else the president's resignation.

    However, committing to reaching a resolution is different from
    presenting a concrete plan of action or, at least, convincing society
    that the plan exists and is followed accordingly. As long as these
    clarifications are not made the movement remains chaotic, and no
    concrete problem can be solved.

    Secondly, Hovannisian's issue is to provide a wide political and civil
    consolidation around only one issue, which is to protect and respect
    citizens' rights by civil rights and state institutions. Practically,
    he doesn't have other resources to provide such consolidation, as
    his agenda and ideological positions regarding the economy, foreign
    policy and other issues are considered risky by many people.

    In this sense, the ARF-Dashnaktsutyun's symbolic joining of the
    movement was important. Actually, the ARF clearly mentioned that it
    is joining not Hovannisian, but the civil movement and for now is
    only a participant. It seems this arrangement completely satisfies
    him. The joining of the Armenian National Congress's former electorate
    was important as well. It shows that, unlike the defunct Congress,
    its electorate remains faithful to its ideals and goals.

    The fact that Heritage intentionally ignores the Prosperous Armenia
    Party (PAP) doesn't only demonstrate its interest to take back its
    positions, but also PAP's tendency to not get involved. As was obvious
    from its statement, PAP offers to transform the movement, whereby
    agreements can be reached with the authorities around fundamental
    improvements, something that was always a waste of time.

    In the footnotes of PAP's statement we can see an offer of cooperation
    around "the plan of improvements" directed towards the Republican
    Party. And while Levon Ter-Petrosyan demonstrated a strong pragmatic
    attitude, he nevertheless doesn't want to burn bridges with the
    movement, considering Hovannisian a secondary factor.

    Third, as much as this movement is civil, it cannot avoid being
    political, as there is no other legislative option to realize its
    goals. The formation of a coordinating body to make consolidated
    decisions and to define responsibilities is necessary.

    But, unlike the Congress, this body can persist only if it is created
    based on a real socio-political consensus to make it relevant.


    From: Baghdasarian
Working...
X