Tweet
THERE IS NO NEED TO BE INSULTED FROM THE REALITY
James Hakobyan
Lragir, Armenia
Aug 2 2007
The opposition is facing a highly complicated problem. In fact, it
seems impossible to choose the best among the innumerable worthy
figures for the common candidate. The point is that there are no
clear-cut measurements of a "common candidate", which was confirmed
also by those people who are considered as the main opponents of
the common candidate. For instance, if political experience is a
measurement, almost everyone is experienced. Or if the trust of
the society is the measurement, they all have lost the society's
trust a long time ago. In other words, in case of choosing one the
opposition will never be able to answer the question "why him and
not the other." However, this is the lesser of all troubles because
in the long run it is all the same to the society who the "common
candidate" of the opposition will be because the process of choosing
the candidate seems quite unserious to the public. It is really
funny when politicians come together to choose one candidate when
each of them states three times a day before every meal that they
are the worthy common candidate. It is good that they also realize
how absurd it is and say about meetings in cafes that they discuss
general issues and are not looking for a common candidate.
It will be impossible to resist more or less to the government in
the upcoming presidential election without a united team of the
opposition. However, the impression that in case of a united team
resistance will be guaranteed is wrong. Certainly, there is no need
to list the previous unsuccessful practice because the situation in
Armenia was different than now. After all, we should not also forget
about the geopolitical tendencies that overlap with the Armenian
presidential election of 2008. Besides, we should not forget about
an important circumstance: for the first time the acting president
cannot run in the presidential election. In other words, there are
actualities which have changed the state of things fundamentally and
made the government think about new mechanisms of reproduction. And
it makes the society highly skeptical about the old posture of the
opposition. At least, the process underway among the ranks of the
opposition prompts that no analysis of the situation was carried out,
and the public moods were not evaluated, the cause of the failure of
the presidential election was not studied. Only the idea was maintained
that the cause of the failure of the opposition was the lack of unity.
In reality this is another trap or misperception. Unity is certainly
important but first it is necessary to get a clear idea of the purpose
of it. If the purpose is the change of the situation in Armenia,
why should we speak about the united opposition from election
to election and not say in the post-electoral period to sustain
unity until the next election? Certainly, unity is necessary to
win the election. Consequently, an important question arises: did
the opposition lose because it is not united? No, of course. The
opposition lost because its actions do not comply with the reality.
Not only in Armenia but also in the world. The major problem of
the opposition is that its range of thinking is narrower than the
government's which has always reserve options, never plays to only
one scenario, never faces either-or situations. Moreover, thinking is
confined to the frame of the table of the cafe, while the government's
frame of thinking is at least the restaurant table. This comparison
may sound insulting for the leaders of the opposition. But there is
no need be insulted from the reality. The reality must be accepted
the way it is, even though it is undesirable and painful. It is the
only way of correct assessment of one's own ability and not making
donquixotelike statements. It may happen to lead to some haven.
James Hakobyan
Lragir, Armenia
Aug 2 2007
The opposition is facing a highly complicated problem. In fact, it
seems impossible to choose the best among the innumerable worthy
figures for the common candidate. The point is that there are no
clear-cut measurements of a "common candidate", which was confirmed
also by those people who are considered as the main opponents of
the common candidate. For instance, if political experience is a
measurement, almost everyone is experienced. Or if the trust of
the society is the measurement, they all have lost the society's
trust a long time ago. In other words, in case of choosing one the
opposition will never be able to answer the question "why him and
not the other." However, this is the lesser of all troubles because
in the long run it is all the same to the society who the "common
candidate" of the opposition will be because the process of choosing
the candidate seems quite unserious to the public. It is really
funny when politicians come together to choose one candidate when
each of them states three times a day before every meal that they
are the worthy common candidate. It is good that they also realize
how absurd it is and say about meetings in cafes that they discuss
general issues and are not looking for a common candidate.
It will be impossible to resist more or less to the government in
the upcoming presidential election without a united team of the
opposition. However, the impression that in case of a united team
resistance will be guaranteed is wrong. Certainly, there is no need
to list the previous unsuccessful practice because the situation in
Armenia was different than now. After all, we should not also forget
about the geopolitical tendencies that overlap with the Armenian
presidential election of 2008. Besides, we should not forget about
an important circumstance: for the first time the acting president
cannot run in the presidential election. In other words, there are
actualities which have changed the state of things fundamentally and
made the government think about new mechanisms of reproduction. And
it makes the society highly skeptical about the old posture of the
opposition. At least, the process underway among the ranks of the
opposition prompts that no analysis of the situation was carried out,
and the public moods were not evaluated, the cause of the failure of
the presidential election was not studied. Only the idea was maintained
that the cause of the failure of the opposition was the lack of unity.
In reality this is another trap or misperception. Unity is certainly
important but first it is necessary to get a clear idea of the purpose
of it. If the purpose is the change of the situation in Armenia,
why should we speak about the united opposition from election
to election and not say in the post-electoral period to sustain
unity until the next election? Certainly, unity is necessary to
win the election. Consequently, an important question arises: did
the opposition lose because it is not united? No, of course. The
opposition lost because its actions do not comply with the reality.
Not only in Armenia but also in the world. The major problem of
the opposition is that its range of thinking is narrower than the
government's which has always reserve options, never plays to only
one scenario, never faces either-or situations. Moreover, thinking is
confined to the frame of the table of the cafe, while the government's
frame of thinking is at least the restaurant table. This comparison
may sound insulting for the leaders of the opposition. But there is
no need be insulted from the reality. The reality must be accepted
the way it is, even though it is undesirable and painful. It is the
only way of correct assessment of one's own ability and not making
donquixotelike statements. It may happen to lead to some haven.