Tweet
`Non spontaneous' demonstrators
November 9 2013
Recently, the `owners of the lines' also decided to make a
demonstration demanding of making the traffic fare to 200 drams. I
doubt about such demonstrations of being `spontaneous', because,
first, those who introduce themselves as `owners of the lines', in
reality play the role of a `proxy', they are the ones `making the line
operating' and not the owners. But, neither the ones making the line
operating, not the owners of the line cannot hold a demonstration
without the instructions of the authorities, because they are
dependent people. The vivid evidence of it is that, contrary to
business logic, they do not work when the authorities instruct them.
And, when the authorities give such instructions, do you remember?
Yes, when they are afraid of the opposition rallies, and when they
want people to come to Liberty Square. Also, when the citizens who
have received bribes are free transported to the polling stations.
Aren't they concerned about their business to suffer during such days?
It seems to me that this simple example make it clear that the owners
of the lines are not the owners of their head. The demonstration of
the owners of the lines is approximately the same as the employees of
the Customs House demand to increase the `rate' of their bribes, or
the traffic police hold a demonstration to eliminate the video camera
devices, because thus they cannot put the penalty into their pockets.
Or, the ministers go to the Liberty Square with the poster `We demand
making the rollback to 30 per cent'. The owners of the lines are part
of the same system, the same so-called `bureau' along with above
listed citizens, and their demands of `revolt', ultimately, are the
aspirations of the same state officials. It is its natural reaction,
`get along with your already not less revenues.' It is possible to
talk about the fare increase only after the owners of the lines (of
course, real owners of the lines) make an investment that will enable
the drivers to be released from the necessity to collect money and,
consequently, from the `plan', and when all the passengers will travel
sitting, as it is required by the law. We should think about the
increase after the investments, and not before. In other words, the
owners of the lines should invest from their super-revenues already
received, and not collecting this money from the people. The following
fact proves that such investments are possible: A businessman with
elegant nickname `executioner', due to semi-political and
semi-personal reasons (these two are constantly intertwined in
Armenia), made investments and bought expensive and comfortable buses.
Hence, the owners of the lines do have money; they have just `put it
underneath.'
Aram Abrahamyan
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/11/09/162461/
November 9 2013
Recently, the `owners of the lines' also decided to make a
demonstration demanding of making the traffic fare to 200 drams. I
doubt about such demonstrations of being `spontaneous', because,
first, those who introduce themselves as `owners of the lines', in
reality play the role of a `proxy', they are the ones `making the line
operating' and not the owners. But, neither the ones making the line
operating, not the owners of the line cannot hold a demonstration
without the instructions of the authorities, because they are
dependent people. The vivid evidence of it is that, contrary to
business logic, they do not work when the authorities instruct them.
And, when the authorities give such instructions, do you remember?
Yes, when they are afraid of the opposition rallies, and when they
want people to come to Liberty Square. Also, when the citizens who
have received bribes are free transported to the polling stations.
Aren't they concerned about their business to suffer during such days?
It seems to me that this simple example make it clear that the owners
of the lines are not the owners of their head. The demonstration of
the owners of the lines is approximately the same as the employees of
the Customs House demand to increase the `rate' of their bribes, or
the traffic police hold a demonstration to eliminate the video camera
devices, because thus they cannot put the penalty into their pockets.
Or, the ministers go to the Liberty Square with the poster `We demand
making the rollback to 30 per cent'. The owners of the lines are part
of the same system, the same so-called `bureau' along with above
listed citizens, and their demands of `revolt', ultimately, are the
aspirations of the same state officials. It is its natural reaction,
`get along with your already not less revenues.' It is possible to
talk about the fare increase only after the owners of the lines (of
course, real owners of the lines) make an investment that will enable
the drivers to be released from the necessity to collect money and,
consequently, from the `plan', and when all the passengers will travel
sitting, as it is required by the law. We should think about the
increase after the investments, and not before. In other words, the
owners of the lines should invest from their super-revenues already
received, and not collecting this money from the people. The following
fact proves that such investments are possible: A businessman with
elegant nickname `executioner', due to semi-political and
semi-personal reasons (these two are constantly intertwined in
Armenia), made investments and bought expensive and comfortable buses.
Hence, the owners of the lines do have money; they have just `put it
underneath.'
Aram Abrahamyan
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/11/09/162461/