Tweet
Kocharyan is winning side in the current debate - opinion
12:13 - 18.01.14
Tert.am has talked to Hayk Khanumyan, the leader of the
Nagorno-Karabakh based National Renaissance party, to know his
comments on second President Robert Kocharyan's recent interviews
which spurred a wide public debate with Prime Minister Tigran
Sargsyan. Asked what reaction Kocharyan's statements found in the
country and which of the sides is thought to be the favorite in the
current debate, the politician said that the Nagorno-Karabakh
authorities will remain neutral on the process, trying to closely
follow the developments in Armenia. He admitted, nonetheless, that the
country will take sides with ruling authorities of Armenia in case of
any conflict.
Mr Khanumyan, the Kocharyan-prime minister-government debate has
become a number one topic on Armenia's domestic policy agenda. Some
back Kocharyan, while others consider both sides `wrong'. Who is right
and who is wrong, in your estimation? Particularly, who is to blame
for the imperfections for which the sides are now accusing each other?
I think Kocharyan is the winning side in the debate, as the advantage
of truth lies with him. The economic situation was essentially
different under Kocharyan. Two years of his tenure saw even a halt of
migration. Tigran Sargsyan and [incumbent President] Serzh Sargsyan
have no chances to be proud of such records. From what I see from my
communication with the business sector, there were clearly defined
rules under Kocharyan, as opposed to the chaotic situation observed in
Armenia's business environment today. There were, after all,
large-scale investments in Armenia's economy, which we don't see
today.
Are people in Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) following the debate too, and
what are the moods and reactions in the government and the society,
particularly with regard to the character and causes of the debate?
Very few public responses have been made. But there are very many
remarks which weren't voiced in public. It is necessary to bear in
mind that Robert Kocharyan was also the president of Artsakh. Many of
my acquaintances have worked in Kocharyan's team in Artsakhh or have
sympathy for him; and there are many who are political opponents.
Those people naturally have different opinions on the former
president's activeness. Most of those opinions are subjective and bear
memories of the past.
Do you think this a bid by Kocharyan for returning to power?
I find, in general, that unhappy is the nation which feels the former
leaders' need. The logic behind my statement is that leaders
succeeding each other have to be more effective to rule out the need
of looking back. That's what the elementary formula of development
suggests. But in many countries, especially in Armenia, former leaders
are very popular. And their attempts of returning to politics are
quite successful. The more the failures by the former government and
the weaker the opposition to the former leaders, the higher are the
chances of their return.
http://www.tert.am/en/news/2014/01/18/qocharyan/
12:13 - 18.01.14
Tert.am has talked to Hayk Khanumyan, the leader of the
Nagorno-Karabakh based National Renaissance party, to know his
comments on second President Robert Kocharyan's recent interviews
which spurred a wide public debate with Prime Minister Tigran
Sargsyan. Asked what reaction Kocharyan's statements found in the
country and which of the sides is thought to be the favorite in the
current debate, the politician said that the Nagorno-Karabakh
authorities will remain neutral on the process, trying to closely
follow the developments in Armenia. He admitted, nonetheless, that the
country will take sides with ruling authorities of Armenia in case of
any conflict.
Mr Khanumyan, the Kocharyan-prime minister-government debate has
become a number one topic on Armenia's domestic policy agenda. Some
back Kocharyan, while others consider both sides `wrong'. Who is right
and who is wrong, in your estimation? Particularly, who is to blame
for the imperfections for which the sides are now accusing each other?
I think Kocharyan is the winning side in the debate, as the advantage
of truth lies with him. The economic situation was essentially
different under Kocharyan. Two years of his tenure saw even a halt of
migration. Tigran Sargsyan and [incumbent President] Serzh Sargsyan
have no chances to be proud of such records. From what I see from my
communication with the business sector, there were clearly defined
rules under Kocharyan, as opposed to the chaotic situation observed in
Armenia's business environment today. There were, after all,
large-scale investments in Armenia's economy, which we don't see
today.
Are people in Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) following the debate too, and
what are the moods and reactions in the government and the society,
particularly with regard to the character and causes of the debate?
Very few public responses have been made. But there are very many
remarks which weren't voiced in public. It is necessary to bear in
mind that Robert Kocharyan was also the president of Artsakh. Many of
my acquaintances have worked in Kocharyan's team in Artsakhh or have
sympathy for him; and there are many who are political opponents.
Those people naturally have different opinions on the former
president's activeness. Most of those opinions are subjective and bear
memories of the past.
Do you think this a bid by Kocharyan for returning to power?
I find, in general, that unhappy is the nation which feels the former
leaders' need. The logic behind my statement is that leaders
succeeding each other have to be more effective to rule out the need
of looking back. That's what the elementary formula of development
suggests. But in many countries, especially in Armenia, former leaders
are very popular. And their attempts of returning to politics are
quite successful. The more the failures by the former government and
the weaker the opposition to the former leaders, the higher are the
chances of their return.
http://www.tert.am/en/news/2014/01/18/qocharyan/