WITH STATEMENT OR UPON STATEMENT
Hakob Badalyan

Lragir.am
15-06-2007 12:16:43

When the American Janes center released a forecast on the political
situation in Armenia, where Gagik Tsarukyan was mentioned as Serge
Sargsyan’s main opponent in the presidential election of 2008, many
perceived it as insult to our national dignity. However, even if it is
an insult, we have to admit the Americans are telling the truth. And
perhaps this is the reason why we feel insulted because they say what
we may think but are afraid to spell out. We are afraid to spell out
that almost all the actors in the political sphere of Armenia have
either sold themselves out to Serge Sargsyan or do not know how to
act. Who do not know that the opposition will fail even if it puts up
a common candidate because we will again see provocateurs, betrayers,
rats, ostriches, peacocks, woodpeckers.

In brief, everything except a political figure, who is ready to carry
out a well-thought and planned struggle against Serge Sargsyan.

Certainly, it does not mean that only Gagik Tsarukyan is able for
such struggle, especially that Tsarukyan with his intellect, political
experience, respect for law, civil consciousness is far from the image
of president. Perhaps he is closer to the image of a king, like they
call him in his native region of Kotayk, or like he is fond of calling
the president.

However, perhaps the statements of the American analysts should be read
between the lines. And between the lines there is a message to all
the participants of the political sphere of Armenia, which must make
them think what actions they should take. For instance, the Americans
want to make Gagik Tsarukyan think what his mission together with
the Bargavach Hayastan Party is: to become another supporter of Serge
Sargsyan or to create a new political pole in Armenia. The leader of
the Bargavach Hayastan Party has a lot to think about; of course, if
he thinks the ploughmen of the American politics nevertheless decide
anything, and their opinions are not released accidentally. Maybe the
Americans are not important to Gagik Tsarukyan. But even it will not
free him of responsibility because perhaps it does not matter much
if the Americans are important to you or not. It is important that
you are important to them. And it already means great responsibility.

So, the leader of the Bargavach Hayastan Party should start thinking
what to do to quit the coalition with the Republican Party with
dignity, because mounting the donkey is one trouble, dismounting it
is two troubles.

Meanwhile, if one tries to avoid the second trouble, either the donkey
will shake you off its back, or its master.

The person who publicly assumed the role of endorser or protector
of Bargavach Hayastan has also a lot to think about. It is the
president of Armenia Robert Kocharyan. Perhaps when the Americans
mentioned Gagik Tsarukyan as Serge Sargsyan’s opponent, they used
Tsarukyan in a collective sense, denoting the team that had drafted
the Bargavach Hayastan project. They remind this team that they were
given the idea of the project not for trade but for competition,
as an alternative to the opposition, which does not have sufficient
levers for equal struggle against the Republican clan. Consequently,
a wing of power can carry on this struggle effectively, which has
certain charismatic resource, which can rely on financial and also
administrative possibilities.

The American analysis also reminds the opposition that instead of
mechanisms of systemized struggle it goes for romantic rallies. A
rally can also be part of a systemized struggle, even a key part,
but the current actions of the opposition remind a person who
has only the engine but tries to drive it without solving the
problems of construction and seats. And the fact that the American
analytical center does not see any opponents to Serge Sargsyan
among the opposition is the best assessment of the oppositions’
activities. Unlike the opposition, the Americans do not suffer
from excess romanticism, especially with regard to others’ attitude
and plans.

The only person who does not need to worry about the American analysis
is Serge Sargsyan because the Americans only described the situation
which is the result of Serge Sargsyan’s activities. Hence, the prime
minister should think about his actions rather than the Americans’
statements, otherwise the choice will be the same as in ancient Sparta:
bring back this shield yourself or be brought back upon it. For Serge
Sargsyan it will be paraphrased: with statement or upon statement.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress