Tweet
TOTAL DENIAL TACTICS
Armen Movsisyan
Hayots Ashkharh Daily
20 July 07
Some political figures that consider themselves confirmed democrats
and liberals continuously announce that Armenia can have a pivotal
role in the region and can be actively involved in all the programs
to be implemented.
Only one thing is needed for it: they must come to power.
After that the reforms will automatically be realized, corruption
will disappear, justice, lawfulness and order will rule, and we will
immediately become the inseparable part of the flourishing western
civilization. And naturally with the help of the magic stick the
problem of Karabakh will also be solved.
It is noteworthy that the more the success of the government in power
becomes evident the stricter is the criticism in their address. Of
course there are lots of reasons to criticize the authorities. But, the
problem is, they deny any positive step the authorities take. Whatever
they do is bad and it makes the situation worse.
It is also noteworthy that the activists of the liberal opposition
camp and left wing activists share the same critical opinion regarding
the authorities.
The evaluation of the before mentioned two wings concerning the
activity of the power is practically the same, the only difference is
in the strictness of the criticisms. While the latest budgets of the
government is bound for the very section of the population on behalf
of which these people like to speak very often.
A question arises here: why do the radicals of different directions
refuse the perceptible success of the current policy.
Though it is an oratorios issue. In the attitude towards the reforms
and in general any policy guidelines, the most important thing is
not its goal and contents but who has implemented these reforms.
Let's touch upon the historical examples. Is it possible to blame
Alexander 2nd for annulling serfdom in Russia or, for example
to blame Stalin because he gave lands and loans to the peasants,
thus developing the economy? But if we recall our history books we
will remember that they used to criticize these famous statesmen for
making anti-serfdom reforms through serfdom methods, considering the
interests of the serf-owners.
>From the point of view of common sense the concern saying " serf-owners
released their serfs in order to strengthen their serf-ownership
privileges and to have more power on the peasant," must be considered
a delirium. But this delirium was preached as the highest truth. Today
the same delirium is heard in our society but the only difference
is that instead of "serfdom" the word "anti-democratic" is used. No
difference what reforms the authorities make. The most important thing
is that they are the principal serf-owners (oligarchs, anti-democrats)
and we can't expect anything good from them.
As for the effectiveness of the reforms... - it is another topic.
Let's go back to the historical examples. V. I. Lenin used to compare
Russia, of the beginning of the 20th century, with a steam boiler that
had to explode because the pressure was very high and the Stolipin
reforms (reforms made by Stolipin) - with the last valve that managed
to reduce the pressure. The only thing Lenin didn't like in Stolipin
reforms was that they didn't' allow the steam boiler to explode and
the trains to roll into the canyon. While the passengers, that is to
say the residents of the empire approved of both the direction and the
speed of the train. The hope that they will throw the engine driver out
of the window and will ask the Bolsheviks to drive the train vanished.
The situation that prevails in Armenia nowadays reminds of those days.
The country is modernizing with difficulties and very slowly, the
internal and the external political situation is becoming more and
more stable, the government is trying to solve the problems dictated
by the history.
Any form of attempts to discredit the authorities is jeopardy for the
country's social progress, isn't it? Bible says, "The house that has
internal split will never be firm."
And nowadays the principal generators of such situation are the
radicals of different wings.
Armen Movsisyan
Hayots Ashkharh Daily
20 July 07
Some political figures that consider themselves confirmed democrats
and liberals continuously announce that Armenia can have a pivotal
role in the region and can be actively involved in all the programs
to be implemented.
Only one thing is needed for it: they must come to power.
After that the reforms will automatically be realized, corruption
will disappear, justice, lawfulness and order will rule, and we will
immediately become the inseparable part of the flourishing western
civilization. And naturally with the help of the magic stick the
problem of Karabakh will also be solved.
It is noteworthy that the more the success of the government in power
becomes evident the stricter is the criticism in their address. Of
course there are lots of reasons to criticize the authorities. But, the
problem is, they deny any positive step the authorities take. Whatever
they do is bad and it makes the situation worse.
It is also noteworthy that the activists of the liberal opposition
camp and left wing activists share the same critical opinion regarding
the authorities.
The evaluation of the before mentioned two wings concerning the
activity of the power is practically the same, the only difference is
in the strictness of the criticisms. While the latest budgets of the
government is bound for the very section of the population on behalf
of which these people like to speak very often.
A question arises here: why do the radicals of different directions
refuse the perceptible success of the current policy.
Though it is an oratorios issue. In the attitude towards the reforms
and in general any policy guidelines, the most important thing is
not its goal and contents but who has implemented these reforms.
Let's touch upon the historical examples. Is it possible to blame
Alexander 2nd for annulling serfdom in Russia or, for example
to blame Stalin because he gave lands and loans to the peasants,
thus developing the economy? But if we recall our history books we
will remember that they used to criticize these famous statesmen for
making anti-serfdom reforms through serfdom methods, considering the
interests of the serf-owners.
>From the point of view of common sense the concern saying " serf-owners
released their serfs in order to strengthen their serf-ownership
privileges and to have more power on the peasant," must be considered
a delirium. But this delirium was preached as the highest truth. Today
the same delirium is heard in our society but the only difference
is that instead of "serfdom" the word "anti-democratic" is used. No
difference what reforms the authorities make. The most important thing
is that they are the principal serf-owners (oligarchs, anti-democrats)
and we can't expect anything good from them.
As for the effectiveness of the reforms... - it is another topic.
Let's go back to the historical examples. V. I. Lenin used to compare
Russia, of the beginning of the 20th century, with a steam boiler that
had to explode because the pressure was very high and the Stolipin
reforms (reforms made by Stolipin) - with the last valve that managed
to reduce the pressure. The only thing Lenin didn't like in Stolipin
reforms was that they didn't' allow the steam boiler to explode and
the trains to roll into the canyon. While the passengers, that is to
say the residents of the empire approved of both the direction and the
speed of the train. The hope that they will throw the engine driver out
of the window and will ask the Bolsheviks to drive the train vanished.
The situation that prevails in Armenia nowadays reminds of those days.
The country is modernizing with difficulties and very slowly, the
internal and the external political situation is becoming more and
more stable, the government is trying to solve the problems dictated
by the history.
Any form of attempts to discredit the authorities is jeopardy for the
country's social progress, isn't it? Bible says, "The house that has
internal split will never be firm."
And nowadays the principal generators of such situation are the
radicals of different wings.