Tweet
FIRST HOME ISSUES
Hrant Ter-Abrahamyan
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interv iew-lrahos15322.html
16:35:11 - 28/09/2009
In your opinion what is opposition? What are its functions and
its role?
Opposition is an important component of any democratic society. The
functions of the opposition are very clear and are contained in the
word "opposition". In other words, the function of the opposition
is to voice the shortages, and negative phenomenon present in
the society. When they make a difference between constructive
and fundamental opposition I don't understand it. The fundamental
opposition blacks everyone, these are typical cliches the users of
which do not understand what a democratic society means. Of course,
the opposition has to present the black because it is its function. For
example, if someone says they do not accept the Constitution or the
Republic, this may be fundamental. We have no such an opposition.
As to the legitimacy, each government maybe legitimate only in case
there is a serious opposition. A strong opposition has to be expedient
for the government. Let us take the example of England. There
the oppositional leader is paid by the state to black, said in
our language. In other words, it is a very important function for
the country. And I always think that I would be very happy if the
government solved all my problems, in other words, all the problems I
voice and criticize. Only a smart government could do such a thing. We
do not have such a government.
What forces do you consider oppositional in Armenia today? Are there
oppositional forces in Armenia?
Yes, I think there are. Even if the Congress is very much criticized
sometimes justly sometimes not, in the last two years it has been
fulfilling the function of the opposition very well. But there is an
objective circumstance here too that the opposition is one of the
components of the democratic system, but our is not democratic. In
this system, an opposition is very difficult to be formed, because in
reality, political questions are not solved in result of ideological
competitiveness.
We may say that the Heritage also existed as opposition until
the recent times. The Dashnaktsutyun is also trying to enter the
oppositional field, but I think it does not manage to.
What impedes the ARF to become full opposition?
I think the leadership of the Dashnaktsutyun connected very much with
the government from the point of business and it is difficult to
renounce all immediately. Of course, it is their internal question
and I do not want to go into details, but in order the public takes
for serious the oppositional image of the ARF, they have to prove
it but not demanding the resignation of the foreign minister when in
accordance with out Constitution, the president is the decider of the
foreign policy and we know what Edward Nalbandyan is and to demand his
resignation is only ridiculous. In result, although the ARF does a good
job, hunger strike, etc, but it does not gather the mass of people
around it because there is really very much worry among the public
in connection with the Armenian-Turkish relations. So the ARF has to
demand Serge Sargsyan's resignation but when he signs the protocols,
no one will need his resignation any longer. The ARF is very late,
because this process started last year. Dashnaktsutyun was in the
coalition until April 23, it left it but in fact did not do anything
until autumn.
Is this not the serious issue around which all the oppositional forces,
though having different ideas, have to unite?
In theory, it is. The events of March 1 had serious influence on our
public. A split took place from some point a positive split. Look,
now there are many people who are led by the ARF stances today
and are against signing the protocols but there is the question on
responsibility here. This was voiced in the oppositional press too. But
supporting Serge Sargsyan you were for repression of democratic values
and did not attach importance to them. Look in what situation we are
now. For example, Armen Ayvazyan today says I am not given TV air
for me to discuss the Armenian and Turkish issue, but you were given
TV air after March 1. Now one may understand the value of free word,
everyone has to struggle for democracy. Will Armen Ayvazyan say now
that democracy is a secondary question and the main is the national
issues? And the most national issue is the election rigging.
The election rigging reflects the Armenian and Turkish
relations. There is the point that the parliaments have to ratify
the protocols. Although Turkey is not the homeland of democracy,
nevertheless it keeps the mechanism of election. Elections are not
rigged there and there is a parliament with the help of which they may
protract the process of ratification to reach the needed precondition
and to be able to repress always more Armenia. In other words, it
is a democratic parliament. Is there anyone in Armenia to believe
that the national Assembly may oppose the government? Everyone knows
abroad what the Armenian parliament is and that it does everything
by the order from above.
And now armed with Russian putinian idiot ideas they reached this
point.
In Singapore, nearly twenty years ago, both the opposition and the
government decided to hold a fair election and they built a marvelous
country in twenty years.
God helps it will be the same here. But I have not seen preconditions
so far. I do not notice that people release the importance of the
question. Everything is viewed on personal level here. Now if I ask
my most democratic friends, if we have not to let Tigran Karapetyan
become the president if one day the greater part of the public
votes for him, they will answer that we do because they again think
about personalities. I think from the point of those who rigged for
example the '96, 2003 and 2008 presidential elections. In '96 they
thought these people are idiots, Vazgen Manukyan, Dashnaktsutyun,
Paruyr Hayrikyan...how can they come to power? In 2003 they thought
"these people are idiot and do not understand how Stepan Demirchyan
may become president. He cannot. If in '98 Karen Demirchyan came to
power with his colorful team, what the situation will be. We saw that
after his death his team ran into the arms of the government. So we
come to the conclusion that they were right to rig the election. No,
they were wrong. Because if it was a disaster that Vazgen Manukyan,
Stepan Demirchyan or Tigran Karapetyan came to power, so it is a worse
disaster when they rig the election because they destroy a public
institution which is for many generations to solve their questions
for 4-5 years. Not the person, but the institution is important.
Hrant Ter-Abrahamyan
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interv iew-lrahos15322.html
16:35:11 - 28/09/2009
In your opinion what is opposition? What are its functions and
its role?
Opposition is an important component of any democratic society. The
functions of the opposition are very clear and are contained in the
word "opposition". In other words, the function of the opposition
is to voice the shortages, and negative phenomenon present in
the society. When they make a difference between constructive
and fundamental opposition I don't understand it. The fundamental
opposition blacks everyone, these are typical cliches the users of
which do not understand what a democratic society means. Of course,
the opposition has to present the black because it is its function. For
example, if someone says they do not accept the Constitution or the
Republic, this may be fundamental. We have no such an opposition.
As to the legitimacy, each government maybe legitimate only in case
there is a serious opposition. A strong opposition has to be expedient
for the government. Let us take the example of England. There
the oppositional leader is paid by the state to black, said in
our language. In other words, it is a very important function for
the country. And I always think that I would be very happy if the
government solved all my problems, in other words, all the problems I
voice and criticize. Only a smart government could do such a thing. We
do not have such a government.
What forces do you consider oppositional in Armenia today? Are there
oppositional forces in Armenia?
Yes, I think there are. Even if the Congress is very much criticized
sometimes justly sometimes not, in the last two years it has been
fulfilling the function of the opposition very well. But there is an
objective circumstance here too that the opposition is one of the
components of the democratic system, but our is not democratic. In
this system, an opposition is very difficult to be formed, because in
reality, political questions are not solved in result of ideological
competitiveness.
We may say that the Heritage also existed as opposition until
the recent times. The Dashnaktsutyun is also trying to enter the
oppositional field, but I think it does not manage to.
What impedes the ARF to become full opposition?
I think the leadership of the Dashnaktsutyun connected very much with
the government from the point of business and it is difficult to
renounce all immediately. Of course, it is their internal question
and I do not want to go into details, but in order the public takes
for serious the oppositional image of the ARF, they have to prove
it but not demanding the resignation of the foreign minister when in
accordance with out Constitution, the president is the decider of the
foreign policy and we know what Edward Nalbandyan is and to demand his
resignation is only ridiculous. In result, although the ARF does a good
job, hunger strike, etc, but it does not gather the mass of people
around it because there is really very much worry among the public
in connection with the Armenian-Turkish relations. So the ARF has to
demand Serge Sargsyan's resignation but when he signs the protocols,
no one will need his resignation any longer. The ARF is very late,
because this process started last year. Dashnaktsutyun was in the
coalition until April 23, it left it but in fact did not do anything
until autumn.
Is this not the serious issue around which all the oppositional forces,
though having different ideas, have to unite?
In theory, it is. The events of March 1 had serious influence on our
public. A split took place from some point a positive split. Look,
now there are many people who are led by the ARF stances today
and are against signing the protocols but there is the question on
responsibility here. This was voiced in the oppositional press too. But
supporting Serge Sargsyan you were for repression of democratic values
and did not attach importance to them. Look in what situation we are
now. For example, Armen Ayvazyan today says I am not given TV air
for me to discuss the Armenian and Turkish issue, but you were given
TV air after March 1. Now one may understand the value of free word,
everyone has to struggle for democracy. Will Armen Ayvazyan say now
that democracy is a secondary question and the main is the national
issues? And the most national issue is the election rigging.
The election rigging reflects the Armenian and Turkish
relations. There is the point that the parliaments have to ratify
the protocols. Although Turkey is not the homeland of democracy,
nevertheless it keeps the mechanism of election. Elections are not
rigged there and there is a parliament with the help of which they may
protract the process of ratification to reach the needed precondition
and to be able to repress always more Armenia. In other words, it
is a democratic parliament. Is there anyone in Armenia to believe
that the national Assembly may oppose the government? Everyone knows
abroad what the Armenian parliament is and that it does everything
by the order from above.
And now armed with Russian putinian idiot ideas they reached this
point.
In Singapore, nearly twenty years ago, both the opposition and the
government decided to hold a fair election and they built a marvelous
country in twenty years.
God helps it will be the same here. But I have not seen preconditions
so far. I do not notice that people release the importance of the
question. Everything is viewed on personal level here. Now if I ask
my most democratic friends, if we have not to let Tigran Karapetyan
become the president if one day the greater part of the public
votes for him, they will answer that we do because they again think
about personalities. I think from the point of those who rigged for
example the '96, 2003 and 2008 presidential elections. In '96 they
thought these people are idiots, Vazgen Manukyan, Dashnaktsutyun,
Paruyr Hayrikyan...how can they come to power? In 2003 they thought
"these people are idiot and do not understand how Stepan Demirchyan
may become president. He cannot. If in '98 Karen Demirchyan came to
power with his colorful team, what the situation will be. We saw that
after his death his team ran into the arms of the government. So we
come to the conclusion that they were right to rig the election. No,
they were wrong. Because if it was a disaster that Vazgen Manukyan,
Stepan Demirchyan or Tigran Karapetyan came to power, so it is a worse
disaster when they rig the election because they destroy a public
institution which is for many generations to solve their questions
for 4-5 years. Not the person, but the institution is important.