Hayots Ashkharh, Armenia
Aug 25 2007
SPARTAK SEYRANYAN: WHAT’S THE PURPOSE OF THEIR NOMINATION?
Alternative is first of all rivalry
Whether the political developments sketched on the native
political arena prior to the autumn round of the pre-election
maneuvers serve as grounds to assume that the upcoming Presidential
elections may `get off the rails’? SPARTAK SEYRANYAN, member of the
ARFD Supreme Body, gives answers to our questions.
`The political forces are preparing for the heated autumn, and
this is a natural and regular process. It is, however, necessary to
state that there is one factor which has become the peculiarity of
the political processes in Armenia during the recent years, and, by
the way, in a negative sense. I mean the existing bustle, which
though formally visible and perceivable, is devoid of sense in terms
of contents.
There are assiduous discussions over the issue whether the
Opposition will run for election on a united front or on separate
fronts and how many candidates the pro-Government wing will propose
for Presidency… Different scenarios for the re-arrangement of the
political forces and pre-election alliances are being discussed …
In my deepest conviction, these are fruitless and ineffective
conversations because there is something extremely important that is
being ignored: society and the overwhelming majority of the political
forces expressing public opinion does not have the answer to the
following question: why are they or their preferred candidate
participating in the Presidential elections? What’s the purpose of
their nomination?
Today, if we gather the representatives of the Armenian political
elite, put weights in front of them and say, `Come up and try to
uplift it’, I am sure many of them will refuse to do so. And they
have absolutely no complexes; it is beyond their powers, that’s why
they do not uplift it. And the following question comes up: what made
them decide that ruling the country is much easier than uplifting
weights? Why don’t the same people hire a shoemaker for driving their
service-car, and they call a driver instead? Why do they think that
anyone can be trusted to take the helm of state regardless his
experience, ideas and programs?
Perhaps, it is time to revise this approach and, before making a
statement about specific candidates, united to-be-Presidents and
formats, speak about the programs and sketch the objectives.’
`Is it possible in this context that the pro-Government camp, on
behalf of the Dashnaktsutyun, and not the Opposition, may propose to
the public the real alternative we have heard of a thousand times
before but never seen, as they say?’
`I wouldn’t like to engage myself in fortune-telling now. There is
one thing I would like to say: all the analyses, predictions about
the possible scenarios of the Presidential elections, (I apologize to
the authors of those analyses) are made on the most profane,
apolitical level: if …, what if…, what if the things go this or
that way … It is not allowed to be guided by the `if-then’ principle
in politics. When people sit together and have some discussions by
reading the tea-leaves, I just don’t consider it serious.
On the other hand, I am more than sure that if the political
forces representing the Government or the pro-Government camp run for
Presidency with 5 vs. 2 or 3 candidates, those people will rank as
top 5 candidates. And there is an objective explanation to this. The
thing is not that those political forces have had some achievements
during the past 5 years. The thing is that the pro-Opposition
factions which have so far tried to act as an alternative to the
authority in power, have convincingly shown during the recent years
that they cannot be an alternative to the ruling authorities in terms
of either their programs and ideas or their tactics.
Alternative is first of all rivalry, and it is in such rivalry
that by introducing your programs to your colleagues, you have the
opportunity of both correcting yourself and influencing the
approaches in certain matters. I believe this is a natural and
regular process in any society.
In conditions of the Armenian reality, such political approaches
are perceived painfully and, certainly, against the black-and-white
background. Because, the goal is forgotten in this case too. And when
there is no goal, the principle of appropriateness comes to replace
it. These are not merely words. If the goal is not visible,
everything else changes into appropriateness; if they find it
appropriate to act in this particular manner today, they act like
this, if there is something else they will find appropriate tomorrow,
they’ll do everything in a different way.
That’s to say, there is no ideological struggle, there is no
rivalry in terms of programs, and people do many things purely based
upon the principle of appropriateness.’
`The chief intrigue of the pre-autumn political discussions are
the rumors about the `return’ of ex-President Levon Ter-Petrosyan,
and some people try to present this factor as the pivot of the
upcoming political developments. Isn’t the goal more than transparent
in this case, i.e. to proceed with what remained unaccomplished in
1998 and return the country to the Armenian pan-National
Movement-based sources?’
`The intrigue exists, but the element of content is missing in
this case too. What is the `essence’ of the intrigue? Whether or not
Mr. Ter Petrosyan will advance his candidacy and whether or not he
will run for election or be nominated? That is, the content aspect is
disregarded again.
I don’t think the matter is that the ex-President, like any other
RA citizen, has, naturally, the right to be nominated. Neither do I
think that there are political circles and individual activists in
Armenia that dream about Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s return, and they may
even propose his candidacy. But the chief intrigue does not consist
in that; it is on a different plane in terms of contents: whether the
ex-President is coming as a political figure who resigned from power
in his time and still pursues the tasks he set in 1998 or he is
coming as a new political figure with new programs, approaches
corrected principles etc.?
If the answer is the first variant, this is not a return but an
attempt of revenge. If it is the second, let him come and stand the
test with his ideas and programs. In this respect, I repeat, I don’t
see any intrigue. On the contrary, I see an opportunity for society
to estimate and try to evaluate the following: what did the country’s
national development strategic policy changed in 1998 and re-approved
in 2003 give the people and the state? What did the policy
implemented before that bring? What conditions did it create for our
country and our people and where was it leading them to? With regard
to the `specific candidate’, I am sure Levon Ter-Petrosyan is a much
more serious man than those who speak about his return.’
`In some circles of society there is a false opinion that the
present-day Government does not differ from the former in any
aspect.’
`It wouldn’t be right to say that the present-day Government or
the policy conducted at present have nothing to do with the policy
implemented under the rule of the former Government. Moreover, it
would be wrong to say that it repeats its predecessor or forms its
organic continuation. If the criterion consists in the approaches
towards the country’s development, then the answer is in the
positive: the policy conducted at present cannot stand in diametric
opposition with the preceding one. And it would be very strange if it
were, because, after all, there are regularities by which the world
develops, and it is necessary to keep the on-going character of the
developments at this point.’
And here, the issue is on a different plane again, i.e. the
national development strategy is different. Currently we have several
fundamental strategic tasks, e.g. the Artsakh issue, the
international recognition of the Armenian Genocide, the
Armenia-Diaspora relations, the consolidation of pan-Armenian
potentials, the full use of the nation’s potentials. In so far as
these issues are concerned, there are vast differences between the
former and the present-day authorities in terms of not only ideas,
but also specific activities. As to the economic policy, both the
former and the present-day authorities are guided by the principles
of free market and liberal economy.
But there is an essential difference at this point too – the
social issues were pushed against the background under the rule of
the former authorities. With regard to the present-day authorities,
especially the most recent 2 Governments formed after the 2003
elections, their programs have a distinct social trend, and the
social component is becoming emphasized more and more.’
`According to the data of the Armenian pan-National Movement
analysts, Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s possible activeness in the power
hierarchy has given rise to an unprecedented panic and bustle. What
will you say in this regards?’
`For the past 10 years, we have been hearing constantly that the
Government is in a panic and even in agony. We hear specified dates
and hours for power shift, but, as we see, the power remains
unchanged. All those rumors remind of discussions characteristic to
soap-operas.
I see the contrary: no political process, either inside the
pro-Government or the pro-Opposition camp or the issue whether or nor
to nominate a candidate cannot give rise to a panic inside the
Government. Moreover, I am under the impression that the Opposition
is in a panic because those people are unable to achieve a common
agreement and decide whether it is better to unite or not to unite,
which activist is a more proper united candidate etc.
LILIT POGHOSYAN