Tweet
THREE SENSITIVE ISSUES FOR SERZH SARGSYAN AND OTHERS
Levon Margaryan
13:25 20/03/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/comments/view/29351
Serzh Sargsyan's press conference was very long and comprehensive. It
has not received a political assessment yet. It has discussed the
government's preferred fields, hence there is no political criticism.
Anyway, the meeting was very rich and dwelt on private property
immunity, new government, party systems and else. The next key point of
the press conference was Raffi Hovannisian, Serzh Sargsyan's meeting
with him and the possible dialogue. The three main points of the
meeting are as follows:
1. It's time to replace the oligarchic economy with another form. Like
many other issues, this one is also discussed at the emotional level.
Oligarch is an adjective characterizing what is bad and evil.
Objectively, it is a mode of organization of the Armenian economy.
This form no longer meets the demands of the Armenian economy.
The government also understands this. The issue can't be addressed by
way of separation of business from politics. Actually, the involvement
of business in politics can be indirect, like in the case of Robert
Kocharyan who has huge economic resources and is able to pursue his
interests indirectly.
There is also an issue relating to the definition of oligarch because,
as it was found out during the ANC-PAP dialogue, Tsarukyan is not
an oligarch because he does not participate in the decision making
process. Perhaps, he does not but Tsarukyan and other major businessmen
or monopolists can force the government to make any decision if
they change the price a bit. It is clear that one cannot get rid of
oligopolies and monopolies immediately, no matter how strong or good
person one is.
Serzh Sargsyan meant this when he spoke about the necessity not to
take drastic steps and to display public solidarity. Despite the
esthetic particularities and nicknames of those in government and
the oligarchy, the issue is the overall situation. Armenia's biggest
challenge is to reach markets. Given the closed borders with Turkey,
the only solution is the Abkhazian railway, DCFTA with Europe in case
of EU integration, or the Customs Union in case of integration with
the Eurasian Union. Perhaps, there is another option as well -private
international trade networks and relevant political sponsorship
for them.
Carrefour is one of these possible networks. There are two opinions
discussed in this relation: the negative public attitude towards
Samvel Alexanyan and U.S. ambassador's moderate political intervention.
Both opinions are secondary and are symbolic. In other words, the main
issue is to look for new systems and new mechanisms. In this sense,
Serzh Sargsyan's statement that Armenia is the only country among
those involved in the Abkhazian railway project which has friendly
ties with all the sides means that there is a future prospect for
Armenia to appear in such markets.
But, at the same time, it is clear that oligarchs have become some kind
of political class in Armenia correlated with each other, and certain
public perceptions of this class should be revised. In other words,
the moral side of the issue is also important, taking into account
the fact that one of the causes of the national tragedy since 2008
is oligarchs. The opposition is also obliged to break its silence on
foreign economic-political issues.
2. The second issue is the so-called mutual bitterness. Though Serzh
Sargsyan defined Raffi's psychological state as bitter, but Sargsyan
was himself bitter about Raffi Hovannisian's policies. One thing
has been clear since the parliamentary elections. The Republicans
and Heritage are motivated to play in the same political field. The
situation was such especially against the background of ANC-PAP
mutual sympathy. But the stereotypes of the opposition and the
general political field did not allow Raffi Hovannisian to enter into
a tangible dialogue, while any step towards dialogue by him or his
team was criticized.
It is worth mentioning that many Republicans did not spare efforts to
diffuse the thesis on sending all the political forces into the same
status as the Rule of Law Party. Naturally, having in mind the bitter
experience of the Rule of Law and the model of confrontation in 2008,
a compromise between the government and the opposition could have
never been perceived beyond the discourse of venality. Actually,
there was such a possibility for both of them, and in this case,
the government and Heritage needed each other equally. Both are
stable and independent political subjects: Republicans are majority,
Heritage represents the civil society and self-determined citizens. The
current situation makes us review all the political notions ranging
from dialogue to compromise.
3. The next issue is Serzh Sargsyan's statement about the weak party
system in Armenia, in particular the shortage of human resources to
control the electoral process. This is really a major issue. The
opposition is unable to mobilize a sufficient number of proxies
to defend its votes. No one knows why Serzh Sargsyan and not the
opposition warns about this issue.
Serzh Sargsyan is supposed to dwell on the shortcomings of the
electoral process. In fact, opposition representatives are active
only in pre and post-electoral periods. For the rest of the time,
they refuse to build their parties.
We should note that the situation of the majority is not better
either. For example, has Serzh Sargsyan ever thought what will happen
to the Republican Party if it is removed from the power? Will the RPA
be able to mobilize people? Do Republicans present an idea which has
the potential to mobilize people? The Republican Party is composed
of people gathered around the governmental resource, and it is hard
to say how many people devoted to the party ideas will remain, if
RPA splits or loses power.
The fact that Republicans manage to ensure the necessary number of
proxies is determined by its being power; it has nothing to do with
being an organized party. For example, Prosperous Armenia, without
being in the power, has resources and motivation to mobilize people
only around Tsarukyan. It is difficult to affirm that Serzh Sargsyan
is like Tsarukyan or Ter-Petrosyan, who can mobilize many people with
the help of their charisma.
Sure, this individual-oriented approach is not preferable either
since it results in negative consequences. Is Serzh Sargsyan able
to create such an axis for RPA to unite people, which should not be
money, power but some idea or system? A system that can reproduce
later without mechanical interventions.
The issue related with the opposition, which Serzh Sargsyan raises,
regards the same Republican Party too and the power in general. If
it is not urgent now, it will become in the future.
Levon Margaryan
13:25 20/03/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/comments/view/29351
Serzh Sargsyan's press conference was very long and comprehensive. It
has not received a political assessment yet. It has discussed the
government's preferred fields, hence there is no political criticism.
Anyway, the meeting was very rich and dwelt on private property
immunity, new government, party systems and else. The next key point of
the press conference was Raffi Hovannisian, Serzh Sargsyan's meeting
with him and the possible dialogue. The three main points of the
meeting are as follows:
1. It's time to replace the oligarchic economy with another form. Like
many other issues, this one is also discussed at the emotional level.
Oligarch is an adjective characterizing what is bad and evil.
Objectively, it is a mode of organization of the Armenian economy.
This form no longer meets the demands of the Armenian economy.
The government also understands this. The issue can't be addressed by
way of separation of business from politics. Actually, the involvement
of business in politics can be indirect, like in the case of Robert
Kocharyan who has huge economic resources and is able to pursue his
interests indirectly.
There is also an issue relating to the definition of oligarch because,
as it was found out during the ANC-PAP dialogue, Tsarukyan is not
an oligarch because he does not participate in the decision making
process. Perhaps, he does not but Tsarukyan and other major businessmen
or monopolists can force the government to make any decision if
they change the price a bit. It is clear that one cannot get rid of
oligopolies and monopolies immediately, no matter how strong or good
person one is.
Serzh Sargsyan meant this when he spoke about the necessity not to
take drastic steps and to display public solidarity. Despite the
esthetic particularities and nicknames of those in government and
the oligarchy, the issue is the overall situation. Armenia's biggest
challenge is to reach markets. Given the closed borders with Turkey,
the only solution is the Abkhazian railway, DCFTA with Europe in case
of EU integration, or the Customs Union in case of integration with
the Eurasian Union. Perhaps, there is another option as well -private
international trade networks and relevant political sponsorship
for them.
Carrefour is one of these possible networks. There are two opinions
discussed in this relation: the negative public attitude towards
Samvel Alexanyan and U.S. ambassador's moderate political intervention.
Both opinions are secondary and are symbolic. In other words, the main
issue is to look for new systems and new mechanisms. In this sense,
Serzh Sargsyan's statement that Armenia is the only country among
those involved in the Abkhazian railway project which has friendly
ties with all the sides means that there is a future prospect for
Armenia to appear in such markets.
But, at the same time, it is clear that oligarchs have become some kind
of political class in Armenia correlated with each other, and certain
public perceptions of this class should be revised. In other words,
the moral side of the issue is also important, taking into account
the fact that one of the causes of the national tragedy since 2008
is oligarchs. The opposition is also obliged to break its silence on
foreign economic-political issues.
2. The second issue is the so-called mutual bitterness. Though Serzh
Sargsyan defined Raffi's psychological state as bitter, but Sargsyan
was himself bitter about Raffi Hovannisian's policies. One thing
has been clear since the parliamentary elections. The Republicans
and Heritage are motivated to play in the same political field. The
situation was such especially against the background of ANC-PAP
mutual sympathy. But the stereotypes of the opposition and the
general political field did not allow Raffi Hovannisian to enter into
a tangible dialogue, while any step towards dialogue by him or his
team was criticized.
It is worth mentioning that many Republicans did not spare efforts to
diffuse the thesis on sending all the political forces into the same
status as the Rule of Law Party. Naturally, having in mind the bitter
experience of the Rule of Law and the model of confrontation in 2008,
a compromise between the government and the opposition could have
never been perceived beyond the discourse of venality. Actually,
there was such a possibility for both of them, and in this case,
the government and Heritage needed each other equally. Both are
stable and independent political subjects: Republicans are majority,
Heritage represents the civil society and self-determined citizens. The
current situation makes us review all the political notions ranging
from dialogue to compromise.
3. The next issue is Serzh Sargsyan's statement about the weak party
system in Armenia, in particular the shortage of human resources to
control the electoral process. This is really a major issue. The
opposition is unable to mobilize a sufficient number of proxies
to defend its votes. No one knows why Serzh Sargsyan and not the
opposition warns about this issue.
Serzh Sargsyan is supposed to dwell on the shortcomings of the
electoral process. In fact, opposition representatives are active
only in pre and post-electoral periods. For the rest of the time,
they refuse to build their parties.
We should note that the situation of the majority is not better
either. For example, has Serzh Sargsyan ever thought what will happen
to the Republican Party if it is removed from the power? Will the RPA
be able to mobilize people? Do Republicans present an idea which has
the potential to mobilize people? The Republican Party is composed
of people gathered around the governmental resource, and it is hard
to say how many people devoted to the party ideas will remain, if
RPA splits or loses power.
The fact that Republicans manage to ensure the necessary number of
proxies is determined by its being power; it has nothing to do with
being an organized party. For example, Prosperous Armenia, without
being in the power, has resources and motivation to mobilize people
only around Tsarukyan. It is difficult to affirm that Serzh Sargsyan
is like Tsarukyan or Ter-Petrosyan, who can mobilize many people with
the help of their charisma.
Sure, this individual-oriented approach is not preferable either
since it results in negative consequences. Is Serzh Sargsyan able
to create such an axis for RPA to unite people, which should not be
money, power but some idea or system? A system that can reproduce
later without mechanical interventions.
The issue related with the opposition, which Serzh Sargsyan raises,
regards the same Republican Party too and the power in general. If
it is not urgent now, it will become in the future.