Tweet
RAFFI HOVANNISIAN MISSED ANOTHER DECEIT
HAKOB BADALYAN
11:23 21/03/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/comments/view/29364
When Serzh Sargsyan's proposals to Raffi Hovannisian were published,
a discussion began whether Raffi Hovannisian was right to refuse them
and go on hunger strike.
Negotiation is part of politics, but not its synonym.
Levon Ter-Petrosyan entered into a dialogue with Serzh Sargsyan in
2011 when there was an impressive number of people protesting on the
square. Probably, Ter-Petrosyan thought that it would be possible
to force extraordinary parliamentary or presidential elections to
Serzh Sargsyan with so many people. Moreover, foreign centers could
also intervene.
Serzh Sargsyan freed political prisoners, opened Freedom Square, and
delegated his people to negotiate. But Serzh Sargsyan left the dialogue
at the first possibility leaving Levon Ter-Petrosyan with empty square
and closed WCs and the PAP as the only available direction.
Actually, Serzh Sargsyan has proposed almost the same thing to Raffi
Hovannisian. It would be naïve to accept it having Ter-Petrosyan's
example in view. If Raffi Hovannisian's goal is uncertain for the
majority, and this uncertainty does not ensure maximum mobilization,
and if he did not force Serzh Sargsyan to resign in another way,
this does not mean that he was wrong when he refused the beaten track.
Does anyone doubt that Serzh Sargsyan would have left Raffi alone
as soon as possible if the latter had accepted his proposals? In
the end, the bait of constitutional reforms had been used earlier
in the political life of Armenia when Robert Kocharyan had involved
oppositional figures in an institution to carry out constitutional
reforms but years later these figures disappeared and the Constitution
was amended the way Robert Kocharyan wished.
Consequently, Raffi Hovannisian did not miss any opportunity, or even
if he did, he didn't miss the opportunity that many speak about. Raffi
Hovannisian missed another deceit or vision which the ruling system
usually proposes to the opposition. This means that he reduced the
society's chance to be deceived. But this does not mean that deceit
is ruled out. But it is at least in the traditional form.
Calls for a dialogue are often heard too. This is another traditional
thing. In 2008, Ter-Petrosyan was called to enter into dialogue;
such calls are made whenever the situation becomes tense or when the
government's rational arguments are exhausted. In reality, the dialogue
is something artificial. There is a Constitution which underlies
internal political and social dialogue. Dialogue takes place when
all the subjects are guided by the Constitution and laws. Of course,
there can be a Constitutional crisis but in this case it is necessary
to show which of the constitutional provisions causes the crisis.
The stereotypes on national unity are traditional, even magical.
Disagreement and protection of rights means discord, while solidarity
is when everyone recognizes the right of a group of people to rule.
The situation is mutilated by collective efforts. Meanwhile, everything
is more than clear. In this case, Raffi Hovannisian could do one
thing for the society and the state -form a firm opposition system
based on civil and legal values which would be aimed at compelling
to government to take steps, not at negotiating.
This could be a real process of change of government because change of
government does not mean change of people but change of the source of
government. Water coming from that source can be abundant or not but
the important thing is that it should be the society to open or close
the source and the government should not come close to it unless it
becomes citizen.
HAKOB BADALYAN
11:23 21/03/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/comments/view/29364
When Serzh Sargsyan's proposals to Raffi Hovannisian were published,
a discussion began whether Raffi Hovannisian was right to refuse them
and go on hunger strike.
Negotiation is part of politics, but not its synonym.
Levon Ter-Petrosyan entered into a dialogue with Serzh Sargsyan in
2011 when there was an impressive number of people protesting on the
square. Probably, Ter-Petrosyan thought that it would be possible
to force extraordinary parliamentary or presidential elections to
Serzh Sargsyan with so many people. Moreover, foreign centers could
also intervene.
Serzh Sargsyan freed political prisoners, opened Freedom Square, and
delegated his people to negotiate. But Serzh Sargsyan left the dialogue
at the first possibility leaving Levon Ter-Petrosyan with empty square
and closed WCs and the PAP as the only available direction.
Actually, Serzh Sargsyan has proposed almost the same thing to Raffi
Hovannisian. It would be naïve to accept it having Ter-Petrosyan's
example in view. If Raffi Hovannisian's goal is uncertain for the
majority, and this uncertainty does not ensure maximum mobilization,
and if he did not force Serzh Sargsyan to resign in another way,
this does not mean that he was wrong when he refused the beaten track.
Does anyone doubt that Serzh Sargsyan would have left Raffi alone
as soon as possible if the latter had accepted his proposals? In
the end, the bait of constitutional reforms had been used earlier
in the political life of Armenia when Robert Kocharyan had involved
oppositional figures in an institution to carry out constitutional
reforms but years later these figures disappeared and the Constitution
was amended the way Robert Kocharyan wished.
Consequently, Raffi Hovannisian did not miss any opportunity, or even
if he did, he didn't miss the opportunity that many speak about. Raffi
Hovannisian missed another deceit or vision which the ruling system
usually proposes to the opposition. This means that he reduced the
society's chance to be deceived. But this does not mean that deceit
is ruled out. But it is at least in the traditional form.
Calls for a dialogue are often heard too. This is another traditional
thing. In 2008, Ter-Petrosyan was called to enter into dialogue;
such calls are made whenever the situation becomes tense or when the
government's rational arguments are exhausted. In reality, the dialogue
is something artificial. There is a Constitution which underlies
internal political and social dialogue. Dialogue takes place when
all the subjects are guided by the Constitution and laws. Of course,
there can be a Constitutional crisis but in this case it is necessary
to show which of the constitutional provisions causes the crisis.
The stereotypes on national unity are traditional, even magical.
Disagreement and protection of rights means discord, while solidarity
is when everyone recognizes the right of a group of people to rule.
The situation is mutilated by collective efforts. Meanwhile, everything
is more than clear. In this case, Raffi Hovannisian could do one
thing for the society and the state -form a firm opposition system
based on civil and legal values which would be aimed at compelling
to government to take steps, not at negotiating.
This could be a real process of change of government because change of
government does not mean change of people but change of the source of
government. Water coming from that source can be abundant or not but
the important thing is that it should be the society to open or close
the source and the government should not come close to it unless it
becomes citizen.