Tweet
POST-ELECTORAL PROCESSES BIND THE MOVEMENT
Siranuysh Papyan
21:09 18/03/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/interview/view/29327
Interview with Manvel Sargsyan, Director of ACNIS
Mr. Sargsyan, post-electoral developments are accompanied by hunger
strike, class strike, continuous rallies. Is it possible to achieve
success along this path of struggle? Will the civil society succeed
forming government?
For already 15 years the post-electoral situation has caused a
political activity. Over these years stereotypes appeared that one
should expect success in post-electoral situations and try to achieve
this goal in one way or another but they never succeed. And the problem
always had the same definition - change of government. From here
the society got the false belief that it is possible to resolve any
problem because the repeated problem has never been resolved. This
makes think whether the post-electoral activity is a determined
fight for democratization. Of course, if people want to protect
their votes, it is a fight for rights but it is not right to say
that this is a movement for democratization. One can even insist that
post-electoral activity is, by nature, a hindrance to civic struggle
because it distracts people from the main issue. From here this mess
of evaluations of what is effective and what is not. There are people
who say that if we gather in one place in hundreds of thousands,
we will succeed removing the regime but hundreds of thousands will
not gather to dispute the results of the vote. Besides, in the past
five years we have witnessed that whenever people were mobilized,
they were asked to go home, which disappointed them because they did
not understand what for they were mobilized.
In other words, the problem is the means of struggle and definitions.
After all, why should people fight, which problems should be on the
agenda? Elections are elections which are held as always because
the mechanism of holding elections is missing. When the problem is
formulated otherwise, mobilization will follow another track because
the reason of mobilization will be clear.
There is an opinion that unlike 2013 in 2008 the problem was clearly
defined - bandit state and necessity to struggle against the system.
Now Raffi Hovannisian says Serzh Sargsyan has to return victory
to people.
In 2008 the issue of dismantling the bandit state was formulated,
people were made believe that Armenia is an occupied territory, there
is an illegal bandit state, we must vote and change the government
and the bandit state will be eliminated. Life showed that this
approach will not lead to solution of problems. The regime falsified
the elections, then easily directed the process into post-electoral
procedures (recount of voted, Constitutional Court), a centralized
rally was transformed to a crowd, and people's activity was clamped
down. Later the resumed rallies were deprived of strategic issues
and lost their meaning in the course of time.
This time the problem is formulated otherwise. The elections have been
falsified, people won and victory must be returned to people. This
claim is put forth to the one who has stolen the victory and struggle
focuses on post-electoral procedures. In fact, we are dealing with
the electoral process. In 2008 there was an electoral process but
it was presented as a different process. In other words, facing the
problem of removing the vicious system, we remain in the electoral
process return to the belief that it is impossible to dismantle the
bandit state and make a choice by means of elections.
It follows that radical change of the political system should not
be linked to the elections. The ruling regime never has so many
advantages as during and after elections. Moreover, there is never
so much external worry as in the pre-electoral period which allows
the regime to intensify repression.
In the recent years it has been repeatedly stated that the country has
an oligarchic government which is like cancer, it has an RPA which
has usurped power, the problems have been identified but there are
no solutions.
Yes, because we are the hostage of post-electoral processes. We set
to think that people will mobilize only in this case, and we cannot
notice a more important circumstance - in electoral and post-electoral
processes we lose the logic of struggle ending in victory. We are so
overwhelmed with this thinking that whenever a different point of view
is presented, one hundred people will reproach for distracting people.
Nobody studies the practices in other countries where they have
solved similar problems and built a state, never explained it
by post-electoral processes and mobilization. They put the issue,
self-organized, mobilized and solved. People voted when their struggle
ensured 100% guarantees. Electoral and post-electoral processes
bind the movement, push them into a trap but when the problems are
formulated, they will have nothing to do with all this, other forms
of struggle will be found.
Now the shadow government is discussed. In your opinion, how rational
will it be considered?
The forms of organization of the fighting public depend on the
identified issue. First, why, then how, otherwise whatever is
organized will fail in two months. Let's assume it is stated clearly
that this group must be removed from public administration, assume we
begin with the lower levels, heads of villages, we set up alternative
institutions, we try to instigate change. It will be clear to thousands
of people why they unite. Otherwise, it is not enough to say that we
come together to form a shadow government. It must be clear to people
how this institution will be legalized. The problem cannot be stated
abstractly, the way of its implementation must be visible. If other
forms of freeing the public administration system of illegal influence,
such as centralized mobilization, the deliverable must be visible,
otherwise no mobilization will produce results. We have "wasted"
the movement for a decade and a half, we have wasted our proposals
in electoral and post-electoral processes.
Hovik Abrahamyan says they are ready for compromise. What compromise
can there be?
It is difficult to understand what compromise means as Hovik Abrahamyan
understands it. Currently, one thing is clear - compromise depends on
the genuine philosophy of the electoral processes. This compromise
will have nothing to do with the problem facing the country. A
compromise would be the following: will Hovik Abrahamyan free the
state machine from autocracy peacefully or we catch him and send to
prison? He is an illegal person and he has seized one of the important
public institutions illegally. This group does not even deny that it
intimidates people, commits electoral fraud and crimes. Now the only
compromise of this person is what sentence this person will serve
because when a person pleads guilty, the sentence is less severe.
In other words, if the problems are defined, there will be success,
if not, we will have another five post-electoral years.
The problem must be defined so as to be convincing. Freedom Square must
transform from a venue of rallies to a national popular headquarters
to solve the problems and the problems will be solved. I think the
consciousness is there already.
Siranuysh Papyan
21:09 18/03/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/interview/view/29327
Interview with Manvel Sargsyan, Director of ACNIS
Mr. Sargsyan, post-electoral developments are accompanied by hunger
strike, class strike, continuous rallies. Is it possible to achieve
success along this path of struggle? Will the civil society succeed
forming government?
For already 15 years the post-electoral situation has caused a
political activity. Over these years stereotypes appeared that one
should expect success in post-electoral situations and try to achieve
this goal in one way or another but they never succeed. And the problem
always had the same definition - change of government. From here
the society got the false belief that it is possible to resolve any
problem because the repeated problem has never been resolved. This
makes think whether the post-electoral activity is a determined
fight for democratization. Of course, if people want to protect
their votes, it is a fight for rights but it is not right to say
that this is a movement for democratization. One can even insist that
post-electoral activity is, by nature, a hindrance to civic struggle
because it distracts people from the main issue. From here this mess
of evaluations of what is effective and what is not. There are people
who say that if we gather in one place in hundreds of thousands,
we will succeed removing the regime but hundreds of thousands will
not gather to dispute the results of the vote. Besides, in the past
five years we have witnessed that whenever people were mobilized,
they were asked to go home, which disappointed them because they did
not understand what for they were mobilized.
In other words, the problem is the means of struggle and definitions.
After all, why should people fight, which problems should be on the
agenda? Elections are elections which are held as always because
the mechanism of holding elections is missing. When the problem is
formulated otherwise, mobilization will follow another track because
the reason of mobilization will be clear.
There is an opinion that unlike 2013 in 2008 the problem was clearly
defined - bandit state and necessity to struggle against the system.
Now Raffi Hovannisian says Serzh Sargsyan has to return victory
to people.
In 2008 the issue of dismantling the bandit state was formulated,
people were made believe that Armenia is an occupied territory, there
is an illegal bandit state, we must vote and change the government
and the bandit state will be eliminated. Life showed that this
approach will not lead to solution of problems. The regime falsified
the elections, then easily directed the process into post-electoral
procedures (recount of voted, Constitutional Court), a centralized
rally was transformed to a crowd, and people's activity was clamped
down. Later the resumed rallies were deprived of strategic issues
and lost their meaning in the course of time.
This time the problem is formulated otherwise. The elections have been
falsified, people won and victory must be returned to people. This
claim is put forth to the one who has stolen the victory and struggle
focuses on post-electoral procedures. In fact, we are dealing with
the electoral process. In 2008 there was an electoral process but
it was presented as a different process. In other words, facing the
problem of removing the vicious system, we remain in the electoral
process return to the belief that it is impossible to dismantle the
bandit state and make a choice by means of elections.
It follows that radical change of the political system should not
be linked to the elections. The ruling regime never has so many
advantages as during and after elections. Moreover, there is never
so much external worry as in the pre-electoral period which allows
the regime to intensify repression.
In the recent years it has been repeatedly stated that the country has
an oligarchic government which is like cancer, it has an RPA which
has usurped power, the problems have been identified but there are
no solutions.
Yes, because we are the hostage of post-electoral processes. We set
to think that people will mobilize only in this case, and we cannot
notice a more important circumstance - in electoral and post-electoral
processes we lose the logic of struggle ending in victory. We are so
overwhelmed with this thinking that whenever a different point of view
is presented, one hundred people will reproach for distracting people.
Nobody studies the practices in other countries where they have
solved similar problems and built a state, never explained it
by post-electoral processes and mobilization. They put the issue,
self-organized, mobilized and solved. People voted when their struggle
ensured 100% guarantees. Electoral and post-electoral processes
bind the movement, push them into a trap but when the problems are
formulated, they will have nothing to do with all this, other forms
of struggle will be found.
Now the shadow government is discussed. In your opinion, how rational
will it be considered?
The forms of organization of the fighting public depend on the
identified issue. First, why, then how, otherwise whatever is
organized will fail in two months. Let's assume it is stated clearly
that this group must be removed from public administration, assume we
begin with the lower levels, heads of villages, we set up alternative
institutions, we try to instigate change. It will be clear to thousands
of people why they unite. Otherwise, it is not enough to say that we
come together to form a shadow government. It must be clear to people
how this institution will be legalized. The problem cannot be stated
abstractly, the way of its implementation must be visible. If other
forms of freeing the public administration system of illegal influence,
such as centralized mobilization, the deliverable must be visible,
otherwise no mobilization will produce results. We have "wasted"
the movement for a decade and a half, we have wasted our proposals
in electoral and post-electoral processes.
Hovik Abrahamyan says they are ready for compromise. What compromise
can there be?
It is difficult to understand what compromise means as Hovik Abrahamyan
understands it. Currently, one thing is clear - compromise depends on
the genuine philosophy of the electoral processes. This compromise
will have nothing to do with the problem facing the country. A
compromise would be the following: will Hovik Abrahamyan free the
state machine from autocracy peacefully or we catch him and send to
prison? He is an illegal person and he has seized one of the important
public institutions illegally. This group does not even deny that it
intimidates people, commits electoral fraud and crimes. Now the only
compromise of this person is what sentence this person will serve
because when a person pleads guilty, the sentence is less severe.
In other words, if the problems are defined, there will be success,
if not, we will have another five post-electoral years.
The problem must be defined so as to be convincing. Freedom Square must
transform from a venue of rallies to a national popular headquarters
to solve the problems and the problems will be solved. I think the
consciousness is there already.