The story connected with the resignation of the Moscow Mayor
turned out to be very interesting. For weeks running, TV dishonored
Luzhkov when in the end Dmitri Medvedev dismissed him. A real Soviet
Union when through papers, state officials were killed like flies:
articles against a state official were written, public attention and
dissatisfaction was generated and in the end the "party" decided that
the very state official is not worth of the position he holds and
satisfied the demand of the society. As we can see Russia follows the
path of the Soviet Union though the president of the country Dmitri
Medvedev dwells on modernization.

Modernization would be if instead of TV or press attack, Medvedev or
an authorized person announced to be dissatisfied with Luzhkov's work
and that the latter does not fit the ideas on Moscow's future and he
decided to replace the mayor and appoint a person who would govern
the capital the way it fits for a country who pledges modernization.

But they try to play a spectacle in front of the society, as if they
are servants as if they have "the same blood" with Luzhkov but the
society's will is sacred for them so they dismiss him. People, of
course cannot be deceived so easily; they understand that Luzhkov has
been dismissed because he was left out of Russia's inter-governmental
new classification or he just turned out to be the victim of the fight
for a new classification. Maybe, really, a person who will modernize
the life in Moscow will be appointed but the mechanism of changes
is very retrograde and artificial, with the help of retrograde and
artificial mechanisms, it is difficult to reach modernization because
the most important issue is the modernization of the mechanism itself.

Consequently, Medvedev had to start from him and not the staff -
in particular, the Moscow Mayor.

Essential "shrines" of the Soviet times are preserved in Armenia too.

Here too, if the power is dissatisfied with a state official, it
does not directly issue about its dissatisfaction but launches an
attack against the official through media. In the course of this
process, either the power decides to dismiss the official, or the
official makes relevant conclusions and clarifies what the power
wants from him and does it. But no high ranking representative of
the power seems to have ever stated openly that this or that official
does not fit the measurement of new quality so the official will be
dismissed. "Bad officials and good king" Soviet "spectacle" is to be
played. While, it has been several years, since in Armenia they dwell
on qualitative changes. After assuming the office, each third speech
of Serge Sargsyan and each second speech of Tigran Sargsyan regards
modernization of quality. None of them has ever had the courage to
touch the governmental mechanism.

The mechanism, starting from self-propaganda organization ending with
staff policy remained the same and even crystallized. The proof of
this is that many staff changes happened in Armenia during the last
two years, but the quality did not enhance because the quality change
is the declared goal while the sincere goal is the crystallization
of the existing quality.

It is not ruled out that in Armenia, steps to change state officials
will soon be taken up which will be based on Soviet mechanisms,
moreover, elections are approaching and propaganda becomes one of the
most important worries of the power. No doubt, no change of any state
official will promote the quality of governance until first figures
of the power are ready to start from the quality of their governance
and change the mechanism of decision making. If the mechanism is
the same, say, it distillates vodka, even if the tools are golden,
nevertheless, the machine will distillate vodka and will never turn
into a bread making machine.

From: A. Papazian