SERZH SARGSYAN’S PROBLEMS MULTIPLY
HAKOB BADALYAN

Story from Lragir.am News:

Published: 17:18:26 – 10/06/2011

The process of political dialogue has stopped, this time running into
the wall of uncertainty rather than the wall of misunderstanding. The
uncertainty is about Serzh Sargsyan’s intention to meet the
opposition’s expectations of a response, and about his response in
case he meets the expectation.

Apparently, the response will not be negative, if it is there. In
other words, if Serzh Sargsyan responds, he will hardly refuse the
opposition the way Galust Sahakyan, Karen Karapetyan or the others
did. Serzh Sargsyan will hardly claim the responsibility for refusing.

Either he will not respond at all or he will suggest something else
to the opposition.

Perhaps Serzh Sargsyan is thinking on this suggestion. Either he is
thinking about an alternative to the delegation or he is thinking on
his agenda. On May 31 Levon Ter-Petrosyan announced that their agenda
is the snap elections but the opposition cannot ignore the agenda of
the other party.

Perhaps Serzh Sargsyan is now thinking on the agenda. There is
an opinion that Sargsyan need not think rapidly because the more
he procrastinates, the weaker the opposition will grow. However,
it is difficult to agree to this because Serzh Sargsyan is not in a
better situation. Obviously, he can hardly keep the situation under
his control, or perhaps he does not control the situation any longer.

The foreign debt of Armenia is already half of the country’s GDP
but the country needs more borrowing and would not survive without
it. The results announced in May and June are being late, the hail
destroyed crops, destroying the government’s hope for tiny improvement
of economy and to have prices a little lower.

It means that Serzh Sargsyan has to ask the oligarchs more heartily
or to force them to reduce their profits a little. In both cases
he appears in a difficult situation. Either his dependence on the
oligarchs increases or he has a conflict with the oligarchs.

On the other hand, there is a problem inside the government. Robert
Kocharyan is not going to give up the political scramble for his
destiny and leave it up to Serzh Sargsyan’s and Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s
joint or individual “mercy”. A considerable contingent inside the
government used to feel more comfortable and protected during Robert
Kocharyan’s office, while Serzh Sargsyan has failed to compensate
for the loss of their comfort and has increased pressure.

On the other hand, there is also the external factor. The Western
societies and European organizations voice distinct expectations
for the continuation of the dialogue. In the pre-election period,
the attitude of these states and organizations has an economic and
political importance. Relying on Russia in this case may be risky
because Russia will be occupied with its own government issues. In
addition, both Putin and Medvedev seem likely to compete in convincing
the west of their necessity to the West each.

In this situation, waiting long may simply aggravate the problems for
Serzh Sargsyan, even if it deepens the society’s dissatisfaction with
the opposition.

After all, long waiting will cause dissatisfaction with the process
rather than the opposition. Moreover, it will aggravate allegations
that the entire process was intended to meet the external demands
regarding Karabakh rather than to improve the state of the country.

The establishment and disclosure of this consciousness, this mindset,
this opinion may essentially change the home political picture in
Armenia and cause new configurations to emerge, multiplying Serzh
Sargsyan’s problems. Consequently, dispersing this mindset through
definite results in systemic improvement of life becomes a vital
necessity for Serzh Sargsyan, otherwise the waiting may become fatal
hesitation.

Eventually, Serzh Sargsyan and his team need to step up to refuse
political group and party interests and acknowledge that it is not the
Armenian National Congress but it is the society waiting for him. In
addition, the society is not waiting for dialogue. It is waiting for
fundamental systemic changes or departure.