Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Serzh Sargsyan Did Not Give Time

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Serzh Sargsyan Did Not Give Time

    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
Working...
X