Tweet
GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA IS STARTING TO BORE
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
05-11-2007 11:51:51
It looks as if President Kocharyan has already worked out his tactics
for the election and has already started bringing into being although
he had stated to work out his tactics when all the candidates are
nominated. Robert Kocharyan who ceded television and red tapes to
Serge Sargsyan for a while seems to be regaining them, appearing on
television more and more often.
Meanwhile, these appearances are as a rule marked by reminders with
which Robert Kocharyan had threatened Levon Ter-Petrosyan. Simply
it is obvious that Robert Kocharyan had a false start. What is the
problem? So far - during the opening of the new road in Meghri,
the opening of the firing range, at the Medical University - Robert
Kocharyan has reminded the voters of the same thing. The viewers
have been hearing the same thing so far. The election campaign
has not started officially yet but it is already starting to bore
people. Moreover, it may even hurt their dignity because unlike Levon
Ter-Petrosyan what Robert Kocharyan is telling them implies that the
citizens who listen to it are unable to think.
The point is that in order to remind how bad Ter-Petrosyan's government
was Robert Kocharyan says in 1990 Armenia had a developed industry and
agriculture, whereas Ter-Petrosyan's government turned Armenia into
the poorest country in the world within 3 years. Robert Kocharyan
told this during the opening of the firing range. He also said it
would not have taken place if an investment policy had been conducted
instead of plunder.
However, every sensible person who hears this, who has the least
ability to think, can understand that the industries and agriculture
of Armenia in 1990 with their structure, technology and resource could
be competitive in the Soviet Union but not in the world. Meanwhile,
in 1990 the Soviet Union did not exist de facto, and it disappeared
de jure in 1991. The infrastructures of the Soviet Union underpinning
the Armenian economy, as well as the economies of the other Soviet
states collapsed. If Robert Kocharyan stated this without taking this
into account, does it not mean that he relies on the instinct of the
citizens rather than their consciousness?
To support his criticism, Robert Kocharyan gives the example
of the Baltic States. However, if we respect the presumption of
thinking ability of the citizens, he should have abstained from this
example. The point is that after the collapse of the Soviet Union the
Baltic States were not involved in a war, they had sea and border
with Europe. Meanwhile, Armenia was at war. Armenia was fighting
for Karabakh where Robert Kocharyan was during those years. Armenia
did not have direct ties with Europe, Armenia was in blockade. No
investment policy is conducted in a country where war is going on and
blockade continues, at best a policy of economizing is carried out,
a policy of supplying the soldiers first then somehow all the others.
With regard to this policy, Levon Ter-Petrosyan's government did have
drawbacks. The soldiers were supplied with the necessary or maybe
the possible, but the policy of supplying the others completely failed.
Therefore, everyone criticized the president whom they had elected
unanimously in 1991. However, it is clear fooling of people when the
public television televises statistical data of macroeconomic indices,
comparing the GDP in 1994 to the GDP in 2006 or 2000. Meanwhile,
even a child can understand that it is economic ignorance to compare
the macroeconomic indices of a country immediately after the war and
ten years after the war in absolute numbers.
Robert Kocharyan might have been a better president than Levon
Ter-Petrosyan. He may have made fewer mistakes than Levon
Ter-Petrosyan.
Certainly it is up to the society to decide because everyone has
their opinion about the government of the first president and the
second president. However, Robert Kocharyan or those with whose help
he is trying to display his advantages over Levon Ter-Petrosyan or
to display Ter-Petrosyan's disadvantages as compared to him, they
should perhaps look for more logical arguments. If Ter-Petrosyan's
government is being criticized, this criticism should be supported
with arguments, addressing the consciousness of people rather than
their subconscious and instinctive urge.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
05-11-2007 11:51:51
It looks as if President Kocharyan has already worked out his tactics
for the election and has already started bringing into being although
he had stated to work out his tactics when all the candidates are
nominated. Robert Kocharyan who ceded television and red tapes to
Serge Sargsyan for a while seems to be regaining them, appearing on
television more and more often.
Meanwhile, these appearances are as a rule marked by reminders with
which Robert Kocharyan had threatened Levon Ter-Petrosyan. Simply
it is obvious that Robert Kocharyan had a false start. What is the
problem? So far - during the opening of the new road in Meghri,
the opening of the firing range, at the Medical University - Robert
Kocharyan has reminded the voters of the same thing. The viewers
have been hearing the same thing so far. The election campaign
has not started officially yet but it is already starting to bore
people. Moreover, it may even hurt their dignity because unlike Levon
Ter-Petrosyan what Robert Kocharyan is telling them implies that the
citizens who listen to it are unable to think.
The point is that in order to remind how bad Ter-Petrosyan's government
was Robert Kocharyan says in 1990 Armenia had a developed industry and
agriculture, whereas Ter-Petrosyan's government turned Armenia into
the poorest country in the world within 3 years. Robert Kocharyan
told this during the opening of the firing range. He also said it
would not have taken place if an investment policy had been conducted
instead of plunder.
However, every sensible person who hears this, who has the least
ability to think, can understand that the industries and agriculture
of Armenia in 1990 with their structure, technology and resource could
be competitive in the Soviet Union but not in the world. Meanwhile,
in 1990 the Soviet Union did not exist de facto, and it disappeared
de jure in 1991. The infrastructures of the Soviet Union underpinning
the Armenian economy, as well as the economies of the other Soviet
states collapsed. If Robert Kocharyan stated this without taking this
into account, does it not mean that he relies on the instinct of the
citizens rather than their consciousness?
To support his criticism, Robert Kocharyan gives the example
of the Baltic States. However, if we respect the presumption of
thinking ability of the citizens, he should have abstained from this
example. The point is that after the collapse of the Soviet Union the
Baltic States were not involved in a war, they had sea and border
with Europe. Meanwhile, Armenia was at war. Armenia was fighting
for Karabakh where Robert Kocharyan was during those years. Armenia
did not have direct ties with Europe, Armenia was in blockade. No
investment policy is conducted in a country where war is going on and
blockade continues, at best a policy of economizing is carried out,
a policy of supplying the soldiers first then somehow all the others.
With regard to this policy, Levon Ter-Petrosyan's government did have
drawbacks. The soldiers were supplied with the necessary or maybe
the possible, but the policy of supplying the others completely failed.
Therefore, everyone criticized the president whom they had elected
unanimously in 1991. However, it is clear fooling of people when the
public television televises statistical data of macroeconomic indices,
comparing the GDP in 1994 to the GDP in 2006 or 2000. Meanwhile,
even a child can understand that it is economic ignorance to compare
the macroeconomic indices of a country immediately after the war and
ten years after the war in absolute numbers.
Robert Kocharyan might have been a better president than Levon
Ter-Petrosyan. He may have made fewer mistakes than Levon
Ter-Petrosyan.
Certainly it is up to the society to decide because everyone has
their opinion about the government of the first president and the
second president. However, Robert Kocharyan or those with whose help
he is trying to display his advantages over Levon Ter-Petrosyan or
to display Ter-Petrosyan's disadvantages as compared to him, they
should perhaps look for more logical arguments. If Ter-Petrosyan's
government is being criticized, this criticism should be supported
with arguments, addressing the consciousness of people rather than
their subconscious and instinctive urge.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress