GENRE CRISIS CONTINUES
LILIT POGHOSYAN
Hayoc Ashkharh
21 Sept 2007
Interview with Shavarsh Kocharyan, Head of the National Democratic Party
"While the pro-Opposition parties are trying to consolidate as
usual, Dashnaktsutyun, which acts inside the pro-Governmental camp,
has re-affirmed that it is going to stand for the Presidential
elections with a candidate of its own. How do you estimate the
Opposition’s starting potentials in this context?"
"I think the problem is on a totally different plane. On the one
hand it is obvious that the Government has already been formed as a
result of the Parliamentary elections. There is a political majority
which has formed a Government, and that Government implements the
domestic policy of the state. The President, actually, has nothing to
do with that. The same Government elaborates and implements the
foreign policy in conjunction with the President.
That’s to say, the presidential elections can solve no problem in
terms of forming a Government, let alone changing it. The only problem
which is solved is the following: whether this will become a totally
autocratic government. Whether the Republican party representative or
the alternative candidate will be elected a President, and whether
that person will, to a certain extent, be capable of becoming a
counterbalance to that autocratic Government.
It is natural that under the amended Constitution the issue whether
the Opposition will manage to consolidate and stand for the
presidential elections in a more or less united team and ‘pass’ its
candidate is becoming extremely important."
"Do you have the answer to that question? To what extent are the
current processes inside the Opposition camp and the continuing
inter-party negotiations effective for reaching that maximum goal?"
"In my estimation, they aren’t effective yet. Why? First of all,
people to not seem to realize that the rules of the game have changed.
Or, perhaps, they don’t want to realize it, because it isn’t
advantageous to them. Anyway, they present the situation in such a
manner as though the conversation were about changing the Government.
Secondly, the effectiveness of the Opposition’s activities is, in
general, conditioned by the people’s trust and support. Whereas, we
are suffering a lack of trust: despite so many reasons for being
dissatisfied with the authorities, people do not trust any of the
pro-Opposition leaders. As a result, the major part of the Opposition
finds itself in a deadlock. Deep in his heart, each activist believes
that he should be the Opposition’s united candidate, and once he
becomes a united candidate, he will introduce his programs, and the
people will follow him without thinking long. I think this is really a
deadlock.
Up to day, the Opposition has managed to stand for presidential
elections in a united team only twice: in 1996 and in 2003. In both
cases one of the pro-Opposition activists significantly ran ‘ahead’ of
the others. That’s to say, it was obvious to everybody that Vazgen
Manoukyan in the former case and Stepan Demirtchyan in the latter case
enjoyed the people’s trust. Therefore, admitting their "advantage",
all the other political factions consolidated under their slogan. No
such outstanding reputation is obvious at present.
What is the result? On the one hand, the President does not have
his former competences and cannot impose his will on the Parliamentary
majority; on the other hand there is no person around whom all the
other pro-Opposition factions can unite. In such situation, the quests
for a united candidate remind of a storm in a cup of water; and if the
things go on like this, the water inside the cap will give rise to no
storm."
"Some political circles, including Vazgen Manoukyan, predict
another scenario of developments. According to such scenario, the
Governmental hierarchy will split up and the Parliamentary majority
will break apart in case the ‘alternative’ candidate is elected a
President. And, following the pattern of 1998, a new political
majority will be formed around the President."
"Let’s set aside the likelihood of such scenario. Let’s admit that
it is so. What does that mean? That means the same parliamentary
majority continues forming part of the Government, and only the person
supported by that majority is changed. Does that mean we are again
solving a problem of individuals, and the aim of the whole struggle is
whether Paul or Peter will support the majority’s interests?
If people are dissatisfied with the present-day situation, I don’t
think the matter should go so far as to discuss the personality of the
one who leads that majority. This testifies to one thing: those who
declare of returning the Government to the people have, actually,
tuned their eyes off the people and are just trying to solve personal
problems."