DID THEY MANAGE TO PERSUADE TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO?
Iragir/am
17/03/06
The new country fails in the direct and party sense of the word. On
March 16 Artashes Tumanyan, the head of the civic action group of
the Nor Yerkir Party (New Country), unexpectedly for many people
and first of all for his supporters, quit the party he had not even
established properly. Tumanyan’s step is an absolutely important event
in the present political situation in Armenia. The reason is not the
importance or function of this political figure. There might not have
been any importance or function at all. And the reason is not either
that Tumanyan’s political party would build a genuinely new country,
and would become a life boat. The problem was the home political
situation in Armenia that was implemented through Artashes Tumanyan,
and apparently will be stopped now. And again the establishment of
a new party is not concerned but a situation inside the leadership,
which enables a choice: power based on a criminal base or a gradual
transition to a civilized format. At least format and not contents.
One of the reasons for such suggestions is the attempt to set up
the Nor Yerkir Party, which was said to have been the initiative
of President Robert Kocharyan to oppose to the politicized criminal
groups. The establishment of the political party of Gagik Tsarukyan
was evaluated as an attempt aimed at this initiative of Robert
Kocharyan. It is notable that Artashes Tumanyan and Gagik Tsarukyan
announced that they would not admit ministers and other officials to
their political parties. In other words, the corrupt. In other words,
they announced that they would not use the governmental resource
because this resource simply discredits.
Naturally, the actual majority of the leadership would detect
threat for their future in everything. What is more, the danger
was absolutely serious, considering that it emanated from Robert
Kocharyan himself. Provided that the endangered officials and forces
knew thanks to their position that the Western powers, particularly
the United States, are not happy about their existence; it is clear
how soon and unexpected the moment of truth would arrive.
It was also clear that they would try to dictate their principles in
home policies rather than they would be dictated from the outside. In
the first round of the election of the chair of the board of Yerevan
State University and in the first round of the election of ombudsman
we witnessed a number of interesting things; then Hmayak Hovanisyan
announced that removing Armenian “Fouchet” would be bad for Armenian
“Napoleon.” Probably, this served its aim, and “Napoleon” “realized”
that he would lose the very first round of every election without
“Fouchet.”
In the meantime, more serious elections than the YSU board or the
ombudsman are coming up. No doubt each aphorism or proverb can be and
must be questioned. But it cannot be denied that every person has
the right to vote, and in this country the president possesses his
right to vote. Robert Kocharyan chooses the familiar thing. It is,
of course, difficult to say what the president would gain from the
election or what he would lose. At least, he would try to retain what
he has now, but the problem is how long he would manage to retain it.
Finally, does it mean that the methods of 2003 will be used in 2007;
however, the repetition of methods does not mean that the result or
the consequence would be the same too. But in the long run it is
important what the state will gain or lose from the change of the
base of the leadership. In this respect the state has more to lose
than this or that representative of the leadership.