Tweet
Serzh Sargsyan Did Not Give Time
Hakob Badalyan, Political Commentator
Comments - 14 March 2015, 17:31
Serzh Sargsyan's meeting with the political forces has caused a
backlash, often with tough accents. The focus is on the bare fact of
the meeting, not the content. As is known, Sargsyan has met with the
PAP, ARF, Armenian Pan-National Movement, Rule of Law, Free Democrats,
Heritage, United Labor Party.
The Armenian National Congress was not invited though when Serzh
Sargsyan was pushing Gagik Tsarukyan to the ground, Levon
Ter-Petrosyan suggested that they meet.
The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the amendments to the
Constitution. No other details are available.
However, the society does not care for the purpose. The fact itself is
criticized in the general domestic political context.
The point is that the political forces have actually opted for
negotiating with Serzh Sargsyan. Because if their purpose was not
negotiations but expression of their standpoint, the 21stcentury
allows one to express themselves without sitting in front of Serzh
Sargsyan. For example, it is possible to type a text and post in the
social media or circulate via the press, expressing a stance on Serzh
Sargsyan's concept.
Instead, they opt for meeting with Serzh Sargsyan, which means that
the conscious goals and objectives are different, and at least the
option of not rejecting Serzh Sargsyan was chosen. In other words, the
negotiations have kicked off.
Was it necessary to reach 26 Baghramyan Avenue to express a standpoint?
If they have reached, it means they have either appeared in Serzh
Sargsyan's trap or they opted for talking to Serzh Sargsyan and
adjusting their destiny in the upcoming political developments rather
than expressing their stance.
The meeting itself should not be taken as a criterion. It is too
ingenuous to think that Serzh Sargsyan's criterion of the game is
meeting or not meeting him, and a force that did not meet with him is
more opposition than a force that met with him.
Of course, this is not a criterion of being or not being opposition.
At the same time, a meeting with Serzh Sargsyan under the topic of
constitutional amendments is a bar itself, if not a bar of honesty, at
least a bar of political maturity or lack of such maturity.
The negotiation is a political category, it is not something bad but
it must have a subject that is comprehensible to the public. What was
the subject of the meeting of the political forces and Serzh Sargsyan?
I repeat that if the purpose was to express their stance, there were
tens of other means of expressing a stance without meeting Sargsyan in
his office, which are more political and substantial, by the way.
Besides, was there another subject? Where is it? For example, Serzh
Sargsyan had the subject on his part: he invited the political forces
to discuss an issue with him and they went, accepting his rule of the
game at least for this part. Because Serzh Sargsyan has picked the
means of expressing their stance for them. And since they did not
contribute any context for their part, at least they did not do so
publicly, the public rightly assesses the meetings as a concession to
Serzh Sargsyan.
After all, nobody has been threatened to be dispelled from politics,
to have their businesses, their tax liabilities or criminal records
checked if they did not go.
After the action against Gagik Tsarukyan, expressing a standpoint in
front of Serzh Sargsyan is equal to leaving politics. Because after
Tsarukyan anyone else in politics should start writing "open letters"
or express a stance to the public, not to Serzh Sargsyan.
Serzh Sargsyan does not need the stance of the political forces. At
best, he may want to know the standpoint of a force but he will make
the final decision. Serzh Sargsyan used what happened to Gagik
Tsarukyan to demonstrate this to the entire field.
This is both the problem and the public backlash to this fact. Such an
assessment is an indicator of political maturity, unlike the political
forces. Hence, there is no need to duck from the public backlash, it
is necessary to learn lessons.
After all, most forces may have been confused and did not make the
right decision; little time has passed since the shock therapy. There
is still a chance to return to politics but not in the way they
usually return in Armenia but after admitting to their own mistakes
and apologizing to the public.
What can we do? It happened so that politics in Armenia starts with an
apology, and there is no need to be afraid of this.
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/33760#sthash.XZLv0ZWY.dpuf
From: Baghdasarian
Hakob Badalyan, Political Commentator
Comments - 14 March 2015, 17:31
Serzh Sargsyan's meeting with the political forces has caused a
backlash, often with tough accents. The focus is on the bare fact of
the meeting, not the content. As is known, Sargsyan has met with the
PAP, ARF, Armenian Pan-National Movement, Rule of Law, Free Democrats,
Heritage, United Labor Party.
The Armenian National Congress was not invited though when Serzh
Sargsyan was pushing Gagik Tsarukyan to the ground, Levon
Ter-Petrosyan suggested that they meet.
The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the amendments to the
Constitution. No other details are available.
However, the society does not care for the purpose. The fact itself is
criticized in the general domestic political context.
The point is that the political forces have actually opted for
negotiating with Serzh Sargsyan. Because if their purpose was not
negotiations but expression of their standpoint, the 21stcentury
allows one to express themselves without sitting in front of Serzh
Sargsyan. For example, it is possible to type a text and post in the
social media or circulate via the press, expressing a stance on Serzh
Sargsyan's concept.
Instead, they opt for meeting with Serzh Sargsyan, which means that
the conscious goals and objectives are different, and at least the
option of not rejecting Serzh Sargsyan was chosen. In other words, the
negotiations have kicked off.
Was it necessary to reach 26 Baghramyan Avenue to express a standpoint?
If they have reached, it means they have either appeared in Serzh
Sargsyan's trap or they opted for talking to Serzh Sargsyan and
adjusting their destiny in the upcoming political developments rather
than expressing their stance.
The meeting itself should not be taken as a criterion. It is too
ingenuous to think that Serzh Sargsyan's criterion of the game is
meeting or not meeting him, and a force that did not meet with him is
more opposition than a force that met with him.
Of course, this is not a criterion of being or not being opposition.
At the same time, a meeting with Serzh Sargsyan under the topic of
constitutional amendments is a bar itself, if not a bar of honesty, at
least a bar of political maturity or lack of such maturity.
The negotiation is a political category, it is not something bad but
it must have a subject that is comprehensible to the public. What was
the subject of the meeting of the political forces and Serzh Sargsyan?
I repeat that if the purpose was to express their stance, there were
tens of other means of expressing a stance without meeting Sargsyan in
his office, which are more political and substantial, by the way.
Besides, was there another subject? Where is it? For example, Serzh
Sargsyan had the subject on his part: he invited the political forces
to discuss an issue with him and they went, accepting his rule of the
game at least for this part. Because Serzh Sargsyan has picked the
means of expressing their stance for them. And since they did not
contribute any context for their part, at least they did not do so
publicly, the public rightly assesses the meetings as a concession to
Serzh Sargsyan.
After all, nobody has been threatened to be dispelled from politics,
to have their businesses, their tax liabilities or criminal records
checked if they did not go.
After the action against Gagik Tsarukyan, expressing a standpoint in
front of Serzh Sargsyan is equal to leaving politics. Because after
Tsarukyan anyone else in politics should start writing "open letters"
or express a stance to the public, not to Serzh Sargsyan.
Serzh Sargsyan does not need the stance of the political forces. At
best, he may want to know the standpoint of a force but he will make
the final decision. Serzh Sargsyan used what happened to Gagik
Tsarukyan to demonstrate this to the entire field.
This is both the problem and the public backlash to this fact. Such an
assessment is an indicator of political maturity, unlike the political
forces. Hence, there is no need to duck from the public backlash, it
is necessary to learn lessons.
After all, most forces may have been confused and did not make the
right decision; little time has passed since the shock therapy. There
is still a chance to return to politics but not in the way they
usually return in Armenia but after admitting to their own mistakes
and apologizing to the public.
What can we do? It happened so that politics in Armenia starts with an
apology, and there is no need to be afraid of this.
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/33760#sthash.XZLv0ZWY.dpuf
From: Baghdasarian