Tweet
WHAT WERE THOSE PEOPLE AND SERGE SARGSYAN DOING UNLIKE ROBERT KOCHARYAN?
Hakob Badalyan
LRAGIR.AM
12:57:21 - 30/03/2009
On these days, the Chairman of National Self-Determination Union
stated that the main responsible for March 1 is Robert Kocharyan,
who make both the opposition and Serge Sargsyan faced with the fact,
doing him a bear's favour. We have to note that this idea is not
mentioned for the first time, and not only Paruyr Hayrikyan expressed
it. Many "satellites" going round the government stated that Robert
Kocharyan's to blame for everything and he put the country in such a
situation and also put Serge Sargsyan in a difficult state which the
poor Serge Sargsyan does not manage to overcome for such a long time.
This idea is difficult to disagree with, but before and after accepting
it, it is difficult to say that this reflect the reality. Of course,
the main responsible for the March 1 is Robert Kocharyan, just for
the simple reason that he was the president of the country at that
time. This is enough for him to be considered he main responsible,
let alone the fact that right he gave the order to use unprecedented
excessive force against the protesters. There is nothing to discuss
in this connection and Paruyr Hayrikyan and the others are of course
right. But this is just the half of the reality.
The problem is probably the following. When Robert Kocharyan is not
the president any more, when his impact on the governmental system
seems to be eliminated little be little, it does not seem that much
courageous to put all the blame for March 1 on him. Before, it was
all put on Levon Ter-Petrosyan, accusing him of being closed in his
house and not coming out to calm the protesters down for them not to
plunder shops and not set a fire to cars, that Levon Ter-Petrosyan was
holding 24-hour rallies with the aim of strikes that that tragedy had
been his main purpose since the beginning. Now the government and its
satellites realized that it is not effective from propaganda point of
view to put all the blame on Levon Ter-Petrosyan, because the public
will no swallow the bait as it knows who what was doing on those days.
That is why now it is more expedient to make a Kocharyan's "victim"
Levon Ter-Petrosyan too, saying that Kocharyan present with a fait
accompli both the opposition and Serge Sargsyan, as he was "the
main provoker, which does not exist any more". So, Serge Sargsyan is
represented as an embodiment of tolerance and is equalled to Levon
Ter-Petrosyan to some extent, because both of them are "victims"
of Robert Kocharyan. In other words, the government and its servant
forces found the way of equalization of Serge Sargsyan to Levon
Ter-Petrosyan. But, this is only at the first sight.
The point is that the people who consider that the main provoker and
responsible for the crimes is Robert Kocharyan, forget that in the same
period they existed as well, moreover Serge Sargsyan was the Prime
Minister of Armenia. So, what were they doing when Robert Kocharyan
was organizing the March 1 in the centre of Yerevan? Where Paruyr
Hayrikyan was on March 1 or the other satellites of the government
which try to find their places around serge Sargsyan through various
public and state posts? Where they were and what were they doing not
to let Robert Kocharyan commit such bad things against the opposition
and Serge Sargsyan, and in fact against the State? Is not their
silence or their disappearance a worse or at least as bad thing as
what Robert Kocharyan did? Or may be at that time they were thinking
that "eliminating" Levon Ter-Petrosyan's factor, Robert Kocharyan
was satisfying them too and was again opening the way to politics.
And the most important question: what was Serge Sargsyan himself
doing on March 1, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia, the
head of the parliamentary majority, in the case when in result of the
2005 constitutional reforms this majority had greater credentials to
govern the country. Did he try to take Robert Kocharyan's hand for
him to not to be have to be faced with the facts elected president,
or Serge Sargsyan was thinking that that was the only way of becoming
president? Robert Kocharyan made the country be faced with the
facts by March 1, but he made Serge Sargsyan face the Bible and the
Constitution, and gave him a possibility of presidential oath because
there was left no other way for it other than March 1.
Hakob Badalyan
LRAGIR.AM
12:57:21 - 30/03/2009
On these days, the Chairman of National Self-Determination Union
stated that the main responsible for March 1 is Robert Kocharyan,
who make both the opposition and Serge Sargsyan faced with the fact,
doing him a bear's favour. We have to note that this idea is not
mentioned for the first time, and not only Paruyr Hayrikyan expressed
it. Many "satellites" going round the government stated that Robert
Kocharyan's to blame for everything and he put the country in such a
situation and also put Serge Sargsyan in a difficult state which the
poor Serge Sargsyan does not manage to overcome for such a long time.
This idea is difficult to disagree with, but before and after accepting
it, it is difficult to say that this reflect the reality. Of course,
the main responsible for the March 1 is Robert Kocharyan, just for
the simple reason that he was the president of the country at that
time. This is enough for him to be considered he main responsible,
let alone the fact that right he gave the order to use unprecedented
excessive force against the protesters. There is nothing to discuss
in this connection and Paruyr Hayrikyan and the others are of course
right. But this is just the half of the reality.
The problem is probably the following. When Robert Kocharyan is not
the president any more, when his impact on the governmental system
seems to be eliminated little be little, it does not seem that much
courageous to put all the blame for March 1 on him. Before, it was
all put on Levon Ter-Petrosyan, accusing him of being closed in his
house and not coming out to calm the protesters down for them not to
plunder shops and not set a fire to cars, that Levon Ter-Petrosyan was
holding 24-hour rallies with the aim of strikes that that tragedy had
been his main purpose since the beginning. Now the government and its
satellites realized that it is not effective from propaganda point of
view to put all the blame on Levon Ter-Petrosyan, because the public
will no swallow the bait as it knows who what was doing on those days.
That is why now it is more expedient to make a Kocharyan's "victim"
Levon Ter-Petrosyan too, saying that Kocharyan present with a fait
accompli both the opposition and Serge Sargsyan, as he was "the
main provoker, which does not exist any more". So, Serge Sargsyan is
represented as an embodiment of tolerance and is equalled to Levon
Ter-Petrosyan to some extent, because both of them are "victims"
of Robert Kocharyan. In other words, the government and its servant
forces found the way of equalization of Serge Sargsyan to Levon
Ter-Petrosyan. But, this is only at the first sight.
The point is that the people who consider that the main provoker and
responsible for the crimes is Robert Kocharyan, forget that in the same
period they existed as well, moreover Serge Sargsyan was the Prime
Minister of Armenia. So, what were they doing when Robert Kocharyan
was organizing the March 1 in the centre of Yerevan? Where Paruyr
Hayrikyan was on March 1 or the other satellites of the government
which try to find their places around serge Sargsyan through various
public and state posts? Where they were and what were they doing not
to let Robert Kocharyan commit such bad things against the opposition
and Serge Sargsyan, and in fact against the State? Is not their
silence or their disappearance a worse or at least as bad thing as
what Robert Kocharyan did? Or may be at that time they were thinking
that "eliminating" Levon Ter-Petrosyan's factor, Robert Kocharyan
was satisfying them too and was again opening the way to politics.
And the most important question: what was Serge Sargsyan himself
doing on March 1, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia, the
head of the parliamentary majority, in the case when in result of the
2005 constitutional reforms this majority had greater credentials to
govern the country. Did he try to take Robert Kocharyan's hand for
him to not to be have to be faced with the facts elected president,
or Serge Sargsyan was thinking that that was the only way of becoming
president? Robert Kocharyan made the country be faced with the
facts by March 1, but he made Serge Sargsyan face the Bible and the
Constitution, and gave him a possibility of presidential oath because
there was left no other way for it other than March 1.