POLITICAL PARTIES OF ARMENIA ARE APPARENTLY MENTAL VIRGINS
JAMES HAKOBYAN
Lragir.am
13:50:07 – 28/11/2008
The first thing that the leaders of political parties participating in
the consultation with Serge Sargsyan told reporters waiting outside the
conference hall was that Serge Sargsyan, unlike his predecessors Levon
Ter-Petrosyan and Robert Kocharyan, takes into consideration the
opinion of the political parties on the important issue of Karabakh. Of
course, it is highly disputable that Serge Sargsyan really wanted to
know the opinion of the leaders of political parties on Karabakh. If
the Marxist Davit Hakobyan was delighted that Serge Sargsyan listened
to his speech without interrupting, or Paruir Hairikyan who left the
consultation for the ceremony of Golodomor said the president took
notes of interesting ideas and proposals, it does not mean that Serge
Sargsyan took genuine interest in the opinions that were expressed.
Maybe Serge Sargsyan did not interrupt the speeches because he could
not understand their meaning, and took notes to try to understand the
obscure things later with the help of his assistants. The point is that
our parties are mental virgins, and when the president invited them to
the round-table meeting to express their thoughts, it is possible that
they did not express them well enough. In any case, however, it is
clear that Serge Sargsyan did a thing which the first and the second
presidents had not20done in their 7 and 10 years of office respectively.
It is possible that during their presidency the Karabakh issue was not
in such a crucial stage like now, and they did not need round-table
meetings like Serge Sargsyan now. However, the problem is that Serge
Sargsyan had stated before that meeting that the Karabakh issue will
not be solved soon, and will take a lasting process. Therefore, the
urgency of the roundup of parties was not more than in the different
periods of office of Levon Ter-Petrosyan or Robert Kocharyan.
Hence, most probably Serge Sargsyan is really a more tolerant and
dialoguing president than Ter-Petrosyan and Robert Kocharyan. However,
it does not mean unambiguously that it is Serge Sargsyan’s advantage
over the previous two presidents. The point is that when one listens to
the leaders of those fifty Armenian political parties who participated
in the consultation and are now expressing their thoughts on it and the
Karabakh issue in general, one understands Levon Ter-Petrosyan and
Robert Kocharyan, although one could understand them before the
consultation. The point is that both Levon Ter-Petrosyan and Robert
Kocharyan displayed amazing realism, adequacy to the situation,
rational and fair governance. What can one hear from the parties, which
are on the so-called political field, when it takes them to appear at a
distance of 20-30 meters from the president at least once or twice a
year to be h
appy? What can they say about Karabakh or any other
important national issue when they are ready to tell ten different
things on the seven days of a week, depending on whose demand is
stronger, the situation’s or the government’s? All these parties do not
even have their own vision of their future, let alone the future of the
country. Of course, each of their leaders did a favor to the nation and
the state at one time of history but at another time they were unable
to resist temptation. Meanwhile, it is known that both the tempter and
the tempted are to be held accountable, and the favor is dropped into
the gutter. The political field with wet favors should be dried out in
the direct and figurative sense of the word, which is what Levon
Ter-Petrosyan and Robert Kocharyan did, drying out the political field.
At first sight, it seems that what they did was a historical mistake
for the country, and the political sphere should not have been let dry
out and devastated but on a closer look at the resource that is there,
one understands that the only way of ridding of it was desertification
of that field not to leave a piece of old root in order to guarantee
preconditions and conditions for establishing a brand new and clear
field.
It seems that Serge Sargsyan tried to restore that dry field and
actually opposed to the policy which Ter-Petrosyan and Kocharyan had
conducted successively. I
n reality, however, it is a logical
continuation. Serge Sargsyan is merely collecting the dry hay in the
political field, enabling Ter-Petrosyan and why not, also Robert
Kocharyan who is unwilling to quit politics to continue their efforts
and to plant new seedlings instead of drying the field each for their
turn. It is another question how Ter-Petrosyan and Kocharyan will
benefit from that possibility. The first is reflecting on the final
establishment of the Armenian National Congress, the second is not
known on what is reflecting. It is difficult to say when these known
and unknown reflections will end but it is a fact that history always
gives a chance to correct mistakes. Simply not always is this chance
perceived adequately. In addition, maybe the three presidents did that
and did that unintentionally. In other words, both Levon Ter-Petrosyan
and Robert Kocharyan, and now also Sargsyan, have never arranged
anything, maybe they acted subconsciously, by serendipity, maybe even
proceeding from personal power rather than the interest of evolution of
the political sphere, but the most important thing is that logic is
sustained, and there is a chance that one day it will end. But it is
also evident that logic takes victims. However, it never happens
otherwise since victory is never illogical.