Tweet
HelloTractor or Will There Be Political Analysis?
LEVON MARGARYAN
16:29 04/03/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/comments/view/29165
The Raffi Hovannisian-Gagik Tsarukyan meeting caused disputes. When
Raffi went to Serzh Sargsyan's office, he had a lot of arguments to
justify and protect himself from criticism. The simplest of these is
Serzh Sargsyan has de facto power and dialogue is important to prevent
violence and clashes.
The meeting with Tsarukyan is queer. The meeting was as closed as the
previous one, and Raffi representing the public shared very little
information about the meeting. While an ultimatum was put forth to
Serzh Sargsyan from the open and transparent square to hand power or
enter into dialogue and the president's administration partly agreed
with the wording `we are always ready for a dialogue'. The
Tsarukyan-Hovannisian meeting is not understood.
A counterargument to this can be another meeting with another actor in
a series of political consultations after the meetings with diplomatic
representations and the ARF. In this case, if Raffi sets aside the
fact that he and his supporters consider him president elect and
believe in openness and does not hesitate to start a series of
consultations, including with Tsarukyan who is always `beside people',
why doesn't he meet with Levon Ter-Petrosyan who has basically
recognized his victory?
Controversies are many. Why isn't the dialogue/meeting held at the
level of mutual recognition. Or if it is organized beforehand, why
isn't `neutral ground' chosen? Tsarukyan's side stresses that Raffi
organized the meeting, demonstrating their passive attitude to Raffi.
The problem has several aspects. First, Raffi finds it difficult to
handle the responsibility for his statement `I am the president
elect'. To renounce this statement means to retreat, not to renounce
means to find resources to continue the political fight. BaREV,
beautiful orange banners, young civic activists are important but not
enough for a sustained political movement.
PAP is the most obvious aspirant, considering its primitive vision of
politics confined to capital, readiness for `cash' deals to compensate
for its absence in the political field. In this context, closeness of
discussions is symptomatic.
This does not mean that Raffi went to Tsarukyan to ask for resource
but judging by accompanying circumstances there is logic behind this
assumption. The problem is that Raffi's actions are irrational, at
least they appear such, and this meeting can hardly be the result of a
rational plan.
However, it is clear that independent from the subjects of cooperation
Raffi must share the details of the meeting with Tsarukyan if that is
going to be politically correct. The guarantee of his success will be
public perception of an open and non-hierarchic personality which will
sustain civic activity along with the political movement. This
guarantee will be a fixed asset for Raffi Hovannisian.
If cooperation with PAP or real politics is preferred, which is
Raffi's right as a political actor, before asking for the opinion of
people standing on the square the advantages of cooperation should be
explained to them. In other words, Raffi must present a `political
analysis'.
The ANC-PAP cooperation failed in the context of the presidential
election but at least Ter-Petrosyan's `political analysis' gave the
supporters of this cooperation a reference point. It is another issue
whether it was honest or not. At least, the supporters were notified
and approved the cooperation.
LEVON MARGARYAN
16:29 04/03/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/comments/view/29165
The Raffi Hovannisian-Gagik Tsarukyan meeting caused disputes. When
Raffi went to Serzh Sargsyan's office, he had a lot of arguments to
justify and protect himself from criticism. The simplest of these is
Serzh Sargsyan has de facto power and dialogue is important to prevent
violence and clashes.
The meeting with Tsarukyan is queer. The meeting was as closed as the
previous one, and Raffi representing the public shared very little
information about the meeting. While an ultimatum was put forth to
Serzh Sargsyan from the open and transparent square to hand power or
enter into dialogue and the president's administration partly agreed
with the wording `we are always ready for a dialogue'. The
Tsarukyan-Hovannisian meeting is not understood.
A counterargument to this can be another meeting with another actor in
a series of political consultations after the meetings with diplomatic
representations and the ARF. In this case, if Raffi sets aside the
fact that he and his supporters consider him president elect and
believe in openness and does not hesitate to start a series of
consultations, including with Tsarukyan who is always `beside people',
why doesn't he meet with Levon Ter-Petrosyan who has basically
recognized his victory?
Controversies are many. Why isn't the dialogue/meeting held at the
level of mutual recognition. Or if it is organized beforehand, why
isn't `neutral ground' chosen? Tsarukyan's side stresses that Raffi
organized the meeting, demonstrating their passive attitude to Raffi.
The problem has several aspects. First, Raffi finds it difficult to
handle the responsibility for his statement `I am the president
elect'. To renounce this statement means to retreat, not to renounce
means to find resources to continue the political fight. BaREV,
beautiful orange banners, young civic activists are important but not
enough for a sustained political movement.
PAP is the most obvious aspirant, considering its primitive vision of
politics confined to capital, readiness for `cash' deals to compensate
for its absence in the political field. In this context, closeness of
discussions is symptomatic.
This does not mean that Raffi went to Tsarukyan to ask for resource
but judging by accompanying circumstances there is logic behind this
assumption. The problem is that Raffi's actions are irrational, at
least they appear such, and this meeting can hardly be the result of a
rational plan.
However, it is clear that independent from the subjects of cooperation
Raffi must share the details of the meeting with Tsarukyan if that is
going to be politically correct. The guarantee of his success will be
public perception of an open and non-hierarchic personality which will
sustain civic activity along with the political movement. This
guarantee will be a fixed asset for Raffi Hovannisian.
If cooperation with PAP or real politics is preferred, which is
Raffi's right as a political actor, before asking for the opinion of
people standing on the square the advantages of cooperation should be
explained to them. In other words, Raffi must present a `political
analysis'.
The ANC-PAP cooperation failed in the context of the presidential
election but at least Ter-Petrosyan's `political analysis' gave the
supporters of this cooperation a reference point. It is another issue
whether it was honest or not. At least, the supporters were notified
and approved the cooperation.