Tweet
WHAT IS AND CAN HAPPEN IN THE CONFLICT BETWEEN SARGSYAN AND TSARUKYAN
02.16.2015 17:41 epress.am
Armenian President and ruling Republican Party leader Serzh Sargsyan
stated that the process had begun to expel wealthy businessman and
the leader of Parliament's second largest party, Prosperous Armenia,
Gagik Tsarukyan from political life. Tsarukyan responded with a
statement about the start toward regime change, right after losing his
membership in the National Security Council. Epress.am interviewed
social and political activists Zara Harutyunyan and Anton Ivchenko
about the current situation.
The main theses of the conversation below:
- Of course, we're speaking about a "competition" between two
"political actors"; their political parties, basically, start and end
with them. Both Tsarukyan and Sargsyan's parties, generally, have
the same perspective in regards to basic political issues: private
property, "authority," the state, resource distribution, morality,
honor, religious values, the nation, even foreign policy. In these
circumstances, the two parties' criticisms can only be in two styles:
1. The opponent is dysfunctional (stupid, incapable, etc.) 2. We
will do it better than the opponent. The opponent does it worse than
we would do or it does not do what it has promised, while we promise
and will do it.
- Can the current situation change the way the public perceives
politics?
Mostly not. The only thing that has changed is that the political
confrontation between the two dubious actors (not political
platforms/ideologies/economic doctrines and even the parties) has
reached a unique peak. Basically, the difference is quantitative,
and not qualitative. The kingdom's largest vassal (sovereign's former
most loyal servant) stated that the sovereign is taking the entire
kingdom to hell, while the sovereign responded saying that the vassal
(former loyal servant) has become presumptuous and has forgotten
about his duty to fill up the wine glasses around the table and to
drive the tiresome petitioners away.
Moreover, both the sovereign and the vassal are saying the same thing:
such people are dangerous for the state. In this light, Serzh's words
about the necessity of abandoning feudal logic are a bit comical.
- Does the current situation promote political and social
self-organization among the citizens?
It needs to be specified, as to whose self-organizing we are talking
about. The Republicans' self-organization is a priori impossible;
there is a massive bureaucratic apparatus which organizes, but does
not allow nor promotes self-organization. In regards to Prosperous
Armenia, then yes, it promotes self-organization in regards to
their fervent supporters of party, who feel that the decisive time
to fight has come. If the conflict escalates, it would also promote
the self-organization of the politically neutral, but "unsatisfied"
sector. Possiblly among the supporters of other political forces,
at least those who do not feel any aversion toward Dodi Gago.
On the other hand, the latter group would probably be perceived by
Prosperous Armenia's loyal supporters as ally enemies. Basically,
they will be denied subjectivity. We shouldn't hurry to be happy
about such self-organization. Self-organization is a good thing,
but self-organization built as a pyramid where Dodi Gago sits on
the peak and for his part, brings happiness/peace/prosperity, is,
obviously, not the most progressive phenomenon.
Presently, the opposition coalition is dividing up the pelt of a bear
not yet killed. In case the situation develops and there is relative
opposition successes, we would probably be witnesses to one of the
most shameful manifestations of parliamentarism. In the end, let's not
forget, that at least Levon Ter-Petrosyan still holds the burden of
presidential ambitions. However little Heritage and Armenian National
Congress ambitions are fulfilled, they will put that much less effort
in the political process. If they obtain more influence in the process,
then Prosperous Armenia will be much more cautious in its policies.
The opposition must find a balance in influence or at least, clearly
see, until when or where their political interests coincide, basically,
until the moment when Serzh Sargsyan "would be ready to listen to
the opposition's demands." Starting from that point, there will most
likely be not two, but a standoff of three camps.
Regardless of all this, we are approaching all types of prediction
with skepticism, and think that the situation can develop in another
way. For example, they may open a few criminal cases against Dodi Gago,
quite possibly objective ones, sentence him to imprisonment, and turn
him into a second Khodorkovsky; his image will be romanticized, while
Prosperous Armenia will turn into a political party and not an office.
http://www.epress.am/en/2015/02/16/what-is-and-can-happen-in-the-conflict-between-sargsyan-and-tsarukyan.html
From: Baghdasarian
02.16.2015 17:41 epress.am
Armenian President and ruling Republican Party leader Serzh Sargsyan
stated that the process had begun to expel wealthy businessman and
the leader of Parliament's second largest party, Prosperous Armenia,
Gagik Tsarukyan from political life. Tsarukyan responded with a
statement about the start toward regime change, right after losing his
membership in the National Security Council. Epress.am interviewed
social and political activists Zara Harutyunyan and Anton Ivchenko
about the current situation.
The main theses of the conversation below:
- Of course, we're speaking about a "competition" between two
"political actors"; their political parties, basically, start and end
with them. Both Tsarukyan and Sargsyan's parties, generally, have
the same perspective in regards to basic political issues: private
property, "authority," the state, resource distribution, morality,
honor, religious values, the nation, even foreign policy. In these
circumstances, the two parties' criticisms can only be in two styles:
1. The opponent is dysfunctional (stupid, incapable, etc.) 2. We
will do it better than the opponent. The opponent does it worse than
we would do or it does not do what it has promised, while we promise
and will do it.
- Can the current situation change the way the public perceives
politics?
Mostly not. The only thing that has changed is that the political
confrontation between the two dubious actors (not political
platforms/ideologies/economic doctrines and even the parties) has
reached a unique peak. Basically, the difference is quantitative,
and not qualitative. The kingdom's largest vassal (sovereign's former
most loyal servant) stated that the sovereign is taking the entire
kingdom to hell, while the sovereign responded saying that the vassal
(former loyal servant) has become presumptuous and has forgotten
about his duty to fill up the wine glasses around the table and to
drive the tiresome petitioners away.
Moreover, both the sovereign and the vassal are saying the same thing:
such people are dangerous for the state. In this light, Serzh's words
about the necessity of abandoning feudal logic are a bit comical.
- Does the current situation promote political and social
self-organization among the citizens?
It needs to be specified, as to whose self-organizing we are talking
about. The Republicans' self-organization is a priori impossible;
there is a massive bureaucratic apparatus which organizes, but does
not allow nor promotes self-organization. In regards to Prosperous
Armenia, then yes, it promotes self-organization in regards to
their fervent supporters of party, who feel that the decisive time
to fight has come. If the conflict escalates, it would also promote
the self-organization of the politically neutral, but "unsatisfied"
sector. Possiblly among the supporters of other political forces,
at least those who do not feel any aversion toward Dodi Gago.
On the other hand, the latter group would probably be perceived by
Prosperous Armenia's loyal supporters as ally enemies. Basically,
they will be denied subjectivity. We shouldn't hurry to be happy
about such self-organization. Self-organization is a good thing,
but self-organization built as a pyramid where Dodi Gago sits on
the peak and for his part, brings happiness/peace/prosperity, is,
obviously, not the most progressive phenomenon.
Presently, the opposition coalition is dividing up the pelt of a bear
not yet killed. In case the situation develops and there is relative
opposition successes, we would probably be witnesses to one of the
most shameful manifestations of parliamentarism. In the end, let's not
forget, that at least Levon Ter-Petrosyan still holds the burden of
presidential ambitions. However little Heritage and Armenian National
Congress ambitions are fulfilled, they will put that much less effort
in the political process. If they obtain more influence in the process,
then Prosperous Armenia will be much more cautious in its policies.
The opposition must find a balance in influence or at least, clearly
see, until when or where their political interests coincide, basically,
until the moment when Serzh Sargsyan "would be ready to listen to
the opposition's demands." Starting from that point, there will most
likely be not two, but a standoff of three camps.
Regardless of all this, we are approaching all types of prediction
with skepticism, and think that the situation can develop in another
way. For example, they may open a few criminal cases against Dodi Gago,
quite possibly objective ones, sentence him to imprisonment, and turn
him into a second Khodorkovsky; his image will be romanticized, while
Prosperous Armenia will turn into a political party and not an office.
http://www.epress.am/en/2015/02/16/what-is-and-can-happen-in-the-conflict-between-sargsyan-and-tsarukyan.html
From: Baghdasarian