THE RIGHT TO APPOINT A UNITED CANDIDATE BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE
Haroutyun Gevorkyan
Hayots Ashkharh Daily
Sept 3 2007
Armenia
Interview with HMAYAK HOVHANNISYAN, Head of the Union of Politicians
"It is not a secret that the period of summer holidays was the
final stage for the political circles to prepare for the upcoming
presidential elections. What political manifestations can we observe
in autumn?"
"To make an accurate prediction as to the political developments, it
is first of all necessary to properly realize the public demand that
was formed during the months following the parliamentary elections. The
discontent among the people has led to the crystallization of certain
attitudes, and in this situation, the upcoming political developments
will be conditioned by the conclusions to be drawn in future.
In my opinion, the public has developed a kind of understanding with
regard the necessity of having an alternative to the pro-Government
candidate, although such understanding is not yet clear enough. During
the whole post-election period there was, actually, some search for
an alternative.
Perceived by the public as the authorities’ favorite, Serge Sargsyan
will try to maintain the status quo after assuming the post of
President. This results from the absence of conspicuous changes during
the past 3.5-4 months. So, society is striving to have a serious
alternative during the presidential elections sub-consciously, while
the political circles pursue the same goal consciously.
The necessity for an alternative is equally realized both by
the political groups which are strictly against Serge Sargsyan’s
candidacy and the political circles which are kindly-disposed to
the pro-Government candidate. Even the majority of Serge Sargsyan’s
proponents hold the viewpoint that having a serious alternative will
be to the benefit of the political system, the state and the people.
While in the absence of an alternative, there will be no political
atmosphere enabling the country’s President to condition all his
actions by the state, public and national interests."
"Mr. Hovhannisyan, don’t you think that the public demand you specify
results from the de facto absence of the Opposition on the political
arena?"
"Of course, the public is well-conscious of the fact that the
Opposition operating on the political arena during the recent years has
no prospects. The high-flown appeals made by any of the pro-Opposition
parties do not inspire confidence. People do not pin hopes on this
pro-Opposition camp and these pro-Opposition leaders in terms of
achieving changes.
It is first of all the pro-Opposition parties that have to take
such bitter truth into consideration. They have to realize that
the pretentious attitude of appointing a united candidate through
gatherings, consultations and meetings has no real grounds.
The thing is that they are no longer vested with the right to agree on
a united alternative candidate, because they are doomed to periodic
and continuous defeat and failure. The right to appoint a united
candidate now belongs to people.
As well as to the public forces whose leaders do really enjoy the
people’s trust, develop and express public concerns and moods. Those
people are not represented by parties, and they are not responsible
for the defeats and failures of the Opposition. It is the political
activeness of those individuals that can be favorable for breeding
a reasonable alternative in public consciousness.
The search for an alternative enables some young assistants, who have
no relationship with our reality, to give Serge Sargsyan promises
of introducing second generation reforms. They offer themselves as
the only reliable support. They can, of course, be a support, but I
personally have strong doubts as to their being reliable. The Bible
says that the one, who betrays once, shall betray again."
"And in what way should the people express their desire as to whom
they prefer to see in the role of an alternative candidate?"
"It is quite possible for the situation of the pre-election period to
become similar to the situation of the 1998 presidential elections
when, returning to the political arena as an alternative candidate
after 10 years of negotiations, Karen Demirtchyan did not receive
support by all the parties indiscriminately (we set up the People’s
Party of Armenia in the summer of 1998, after the presidential
elections). He returned as a candidate supported by a thick layer of
society and relied directly on the people’s support.
This precedent is another proof that in conditions of the present-day
multi-party political system which is still in an unaccomplished state,
the decisions of party leaders and their haughty self-confidence
should not be relied upon.
In this context, the possibility of Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s
political return is worth discussions. Like Karen Demortchyan, Levon
Ter-Petrosyan had to quit politics as a result of the public moods and
some developments that were not favorable for him. It is predictable
that like Karen Demirtchyan, he has no desire to end his political
biography with a mournful, declining and defeatist epilogue.
Mr. Demitchyan also used to tell everybody that his political path
had come to an end, and never again would he assume any role in
politics. But I was sure that having been the leader of Armenia for
many years, a political figure of such caliber could not put up with
the idea of departing from politics in the status of a loser and
would, under any circumstances, try to return to big politics and
say his final word in new conditions.
These preconditions are so ponderous that Levon Ter-Petrosyan cannot
simply remain in the political underground. But the public demand
for an alternative presidential candidate is an extra precondition,
and it is not addressed to Levon Ter-Petrosyan at all.
I do not agree with the activists who are delighted to discuss the
alleged public demand for this particular person.
However, the public demand for a political alternative whose presence
is obvious, may result in L. Ter-Petrosyan’s nomination.
This will be possible only in case L. Ter-Petrosyan finds strength
enough to detach himself from the corporate circles, as did Karen
Demirtchyan in 1998 when he quit the Communist party and his
nomenclature-based past. The thing is that society wants neither
revanchism nor the reanimation of a political force that has been
denied, and it still has no confidence as to whether the first
President will return with a new image and new quality.
He, personally, has not yet taken any step to prove that during the
10 years of his political banishment he made a critical analysis as
to the political path he has passed, reached new ideas and detached
himself from the forces denied by society. Unless he assumes an
attitude superior to party interests and proves that he has detached
himself from his old supporters and circles, his personality cannot
enjoy public demand.