THE TIME TO WITHDRAW FROM THE CIRCLE
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir
Jan 18 2008
Armenia
In the Armenian presidential election 2008, besides the ideas and
programs which the presidential candidates present one after another,
brighter than ever, the society also wants to know whether the
reproduction of the government would be so difficult if the first
president of Armenia did not run in the election. Now it is obvious
that the government is worried about his participation. Some people
think this worry is false, and say Levon Ter-Petrosyan is the most
desirable opponent for the government because the ex-president is
vulnerable considering the events that took place during his office
and the memory of the society. Yet some people believe that Levon
Ter-Petrosyan will be the new president of Armenia, and others believe
that for the first time in the past years there will be real struggle
in Armenia, and for the first time the scenario of the government
is endangered.
It is perhaps very difficult to prove or crush each of these opinions
because there are arguments for all the opinions that the government’s
worry is sham, Levon Ter-Petrosyan will win, and the plough of the
reproduction of government has run into a stone.
Therefore, I will avoid this, also because the outcome of the election
on February 19 will not give an answer which of the three or may
be the existing one thousand and three options was true. However,
one thing is obvious that the reality is different, and everyone
understands, realizes and feels this. In this context, one of the
important questions is whether Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s political
activity is the cause of the change of the reality or the change of
the reality enabled him consider returning to politics. At first sight,
the difference may not be considered as essential. A considerable part
of the society will think that Ter-Petrosyan’s return is important
because the society had used every resource for struggle against the
government, and if Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s factor were not activated,
they society would have to obey and rely on the government’s kindness
to make at least one positive move once in five years to make life
attractive and desirable for the society as well.
But perhaps the difference is great whether Ter-Petrosyan has changed
the reality or the change of reality has brought about Ter-Petrosyan.
The first should make us worry along with the excitement. The worry
is that the reality again depends on one person, despite the aims
he pursues, despite the first president’s evaluation of the past,
acknowledgement of mistakes and self-denial to help the society. Even
the good cannot produce quality, if it depends on one person, and if
certainly this one is not God. Meanwhile, Levon Ter-Petrosyan is not
God. The problem is whether the first president’s political activity is
an expression of change of the reality. In other words, Ter-Petrosyan
has returned not because his patience was wearing thin, he could not
bear the injustice but because as an experienced political activist,
he realized the change of reality and decided to become an active
participant of the political process. In this case, the situation,
the prospect of development is much more reassuring because if Levon
Ter-Petrosyan is the expression of the change of the reality, it means
in any case the new reality brings about new inevitable solutions, and
the activity of the first president will be in this context. Meanwhile,
it is more favorable in terms of social development because the persons
brought by a new reality are preferable to a new reality brought by
persons. I do not pretend to answer the dilemma I set forward but I,
nevertheless, pretend to think that the answer should be found and
understood as soon as possible because its influence on the political
developments may be essential. After all, we have been turning round,
and one more circle may be fatal in terms of vertigo.