Tweet
Hayots Ashkharh, Armenia
Aug 25 2007
WITHOUT THE THIRD VERSION
Either Legal Successor Or Instability
The discussions and debates regarding the leading candidate for
presidency during the forthcoming 2008 presidential elections become
hotter. But the word `debate' is far not suitable for our reality.
Here the truth is born due to not debates but scuffles. Though as a
result of scuffles not the truth but invalids are usually born.
Anyway some people become nervous when the thing comes about the
legal successor of the president. According to `ardent pro-democrats'
it is only the king that can have a successor and in the countries
governed by a president it is the people that elect the new leader of
the country.
If we go through the international experience we will see that the
issue of successorship is not that primitive. For example in 1990
Margaret Thatcher successively appointed a not very famous Deputy
Minister John Major on different high positions, later she helped him
to become a Prime-Minister.
We can bring fresher examples. After Blair's resignation his
successor Gordon Brown became the Prime Minister of Great Britain.
Jacque Shirak's successor Nicola Sarkozy became President of France.
Does this mean Great Britain and France are non-democratic
countries?
Let alone the fact that there is another serious argumentation for
Armenia to support successorship. In our reality this version
doesn't' have any other alternative - either successorship or
instability, with all the dangers coming from it, both in internal
and external political spheres. The leaders, in the present-day West,
are though important, but anyway only screws in the huge state
machine. And in Armenia the President is the bearer of the political
system, which lays clear responsibilities on his shoulders, even if
they are not envisaged by the constitution.
Lets consider the president takes a neutral role in the elections
of the future president of the country. What will happen in that
case? Victory of democracy? Quite impossible! Most probably the state
will face an uncountable fight for power - dangerous for the country.
The radicals say if the government officials' insist on
successorship the only thing left to do is revolution. What
revolution? What is revolution in general? Lets try to understand.
The famous formulation `scientific revolution' given by science
methodologist Tomas Kun gives us a great opportunity to understand
the essence of revolution. The refusal of one paradigm by the
scientific society and the adoption of another more or less
acceptable one is what they call revolution.
Very often, by mistake, they link revolution to the violence
against the acting government. But it is far not like that.
French great revolution has its exact astronomical moment of
implementation. It is far not the Bastille occupation that is
mentioned as the memorable day, and not the beheading of the king.
The great revolution took place at the moment when on June 17, 1789
the General Staffs refused to work `according to layers' and declared
themselves a National Assembly and on June 20, entering the first
private hall (ball-game) they swore to keep their working style,
until a Constitution is elaborated for France.
The 1917 February revolution (that was the real revolution,
because what happened in October was a coup d'état) took place when
Nicolay the 2nd heard the clear attitude of the fighting army about
the necessity of his resignation, he agreed.
The revolutionaries believe they give an end to the absolute
power. But it is only an anarchistic dream. Revolution gives an end
to that concrete absolute power. And after some period of time
another necessity for revolution appears.
Thus, Armenian stormy petrels must put up with the idea that
during the 2008 presidential elections on February, the power will be
shifted to the successor of the acting president and better if they
forget about their adventurism.
Walks - instead of marches, medicine - instead of things, ward -
instead of flats, wisdom - instead of brains, and an extremely
healthy lifestyle that will replace the basic life.
GAGIK MKRTCHYAN
Aug 25 2007
WITHOUT THE THIRD VERSION
Either Legal Successor Or Instability
The discussions and debates regarding the leading candidate for
presidency during the forthcoming 2008 presidential elections become
hotter. But the word `debate' is far not suitable for our reality.
Here the truth is born due to not debates but scuffles. Though as a
result of scuffles not the truth but invalids are usually born.
Anyway some people become nervous when the thing comes about the
legal successor of the president. According to `ardent pro-democrats'
it is only the king that can have a successor and in the countries
governed by a president it is the people that elect the new leader of
the country.
If we go through the international experience we will see that the
issue of successorship is not that primitive. For example in 1990
Margaret Thatcher successively appointed a not very famous Deputy
Minister John Major on different high positions, later she helped him
to become a Prime-Minister.
We can bring fresher examples. After Blair's resignation his
successor Gordon Brown became the Prime Minister of Great Britain.
Jacque Shirak's successor Nicola Sarkozy became President of France.
Does this mean Great Britain and France are non-democratic
countries?
Let alone the fact that there is another serious argumentation for
Armenia to support successorship. In our reality this version
doesn't' have any other alternative - either successorship or
instability, with all the dangers coming from it, both in internal
and external political spheres. The leaders, in the present-day West,
are though important, but anyway only screws in the huge state
machine. And in Armenia the President is the bearer of the political
system, which lays clear responsibilities on his shoulders, even if
they are not envisaged by the constitution.
Lets consider the president takes a neutral role in the elections
of the future president of the country. What will happen in that
case? Victory of democracy? Quite impossible! Most probably the state
will face an uncountable fight for power - dangerous for the country.
The radicals say if the government officials' insist on
successorship the only thing left to do is revolution. What
revolution? What is revolution in general? Lets try to understand.
The famous formulation `scientific revolution' given by science
methodologist Tomas Kun gives us a great opportunity to understand
the essence of revolution. The refusal of one paradigm by the
scientific society and the adoption of another more or less
acceptable one is what they call revolution.
Very often, by mistake, they link revolution to the violence
against the acting government. But it is far not like that.
French great revolution has its exact astronomical moment of
implementation. It is far not the Bastille occupation that is
mentioned as the memorable day, and not the beheading of the king.
The great revolution took place at the moment when on June 17, 1789
the General Staffs refused to work `according to layers' and declared
themselves a National Assembly and on June 20, entering the first
private hall (ball-game) they swore to keep their working style,
until a Constitution is elaborated for France.
The 1917 February revolution (that was the real revolution,
because what happened in October was a coup d'état) took place when
Nicolay the 2nd heard the clear attitude of the fighting army about
the necessity of his resignation, he agreed.
The revolutionaries believe they give an end to the absolute
power. But it is only an anarchistic dream. Revolution gives an end
to that concrete absolute power. And after some period of time
another necessity for revolution appears.
Thus, Armenian stormy petrels must put up with the idea that
during the 2008 presidential elections on February, the power will be
shifted to the successor of the acting president and better if they
forget about their adventurism.
Walks - instead of marches, medicine - instead of things, ward -
instead of flats, wisdom - instead of brains, and an extremely
healthy lifestyle that will replace the basic life.
GAGIK MKRTCHYAN