MODEL OF POWER IN ARMENIA
Lragir.am
22/12/09
Interview with the chair of the "Collaboration for Democracy" centre
Stepan Danielyan
Many believe that in terms of developments, the year 2009 was a logical
continuation of 2008. What was the 2009 the year in your opinion?
Naturally, 2009 is the continuation of 2008, 2008-2003, 2003-1999 etc.
I think the whole problem is that developments do not get political
assessments and conclusions. Broadly, we do not have political
history. And traditions continue, and the society did not assess the
year 2009 politically.
Do you not think that the political conscience of people matured
during the last several years?
I would not like to offend anyone but our nation is not based
on political history but on myths, tales, imaginations where the
mechanisms of political assessments lack.
Could you give your own assessment?
Let us first try to understand the philosophy and the techniques of
the formation of authorities in Armenia. There are common ideas that
power in Armenia is not formed through elections. To some extent, it
is true because elections are rigged but the power is formed during
elections but it is not based on their results. Thousands of people
who participate in frauds are involved here. In some sense, this is
a joint-stock company: the more you invest in frauds, the more you get.
They share a zone of influence, economic monopolies, government
posts and else. During the next election, people who leave this
mechanism are provisionally called opposition. Those who remain are
called authorities. That is, the power is generated only during the
redeployment of the economy.
The system of election rigging supposes for illegitimate authorities
which does not depend on the society but on the command which falsifies
the elections. Any legitimate power is a threat for this system.
Look at what happened in 1996: a sector of power supported Vazgen
Manukyan for Levon Ter-Petrosyan to come out illegitimate. In ’98,
the same mechanism was undertaken. Vazgen Sargsyan involved in the
game Demirchyan, and Kocharyan became illegitimate. In 2003, the same
processes took place but the power was not enough powerful. In 2008,
a part of the power supported Levon Ter-Petrosyan for Serge Sargsyan
to become illegitimate.
In Armenia, besides, the first presidential election, only one
legitimate election took place in Armenia – the parliamentary election
in 1999. As a result, the system of falsification was threatened.
Legitimate power would destroy this system and on October 17, 1999,
this system collapsed. The paradox is that the more powerful the
opposition is the more viable the system is. And in this context,
the reason why the government used to leave in the dust the opposition
during elections becomes clear.
In what direction do developments take place?
I think the system starts exhausting. When the opposition becomes
weaker, the system will have to act. That is, the real struggle for
power took place between different branches of authorities. The power
was used for weakening, for the formation of an illegitimate power.
Do we have opposition?
The significance of the role of Levon Ter-Petrosyan is that those
who did not understand what was happening were frustrated. We have
one opposition – the Congress, but it is now in the process of
self-destruction. The next election will be very problematic because
there will be no opposition and the game between the branches of power
will not happen with the opposition and the logic will change. The
fight will be tougher because the opposition unites the power.
Do you think the Congress will not run in 2012 elections?
I would like them to, but I do not think Levon Ter-Petrosyan will run
in the parliamentary election. Experience shows that he fights better
when he is one on one with someone. And in this case, the model of
power which is concluded in the existence of a strong opposition and
its use in internal "showdowns" may fail to act. But the most important
is whether political assessments will be heard which will belong to
the society and will be able to change the situation. I think our
main task is to fix the situation and make it a public opinion.
What do you expect in 2010 in the context of the Armenian and Turkish
relations?
Judging by commentaries, the impression is created that Armenia and
Turkey will try normalizing their relations but Karabakh will hinder
them. I think it is not so. And such an opinion disorientates the
society. After the first and the second World Wars, in Europe new
borders, new orders, system values were designed which brought about
development and the concept of "European union". The time for the
regulation of our region came too. In Europe, such transformations
brought about a war because the superpowers of that time were involved
in the game, in our region shakes of that scale will lack because
superpowers are just mediators here. We have to view world processes
in the light of our region and the Armenian and Turkish relations
are also to be viewed from this angle. We need to understand how our
region is going to be and what the role of the Armenian and Turkish
relations is there.
Does anything depend on us?
Little depends on our authorities – they cannot even solve problems
within the country. We simply can consider the Armenian authorities
an object which is being pushed to make some kind of steps. But there
are situations where this object should be able to at least properly
orientate. Our object is not able, and this is a major political
issue in Armenia. In Armenia, the ruling elite which is a gathering
of unsuccessful people who do not understand what is happening in
the region.
That is, you think the political sphere is empty.
Merely, it does not exist. It is a group of people which are moved
by egoistic interests who do not have ideas on the future of Armenia.
Will this group be able to get the opportunity presented by the
geopolitical situation?
Interview By Siranuysh Papyan
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
