Tweet
ABOUT AN UNPLEASANT FORMAT AND BARGAINING
http://www.aravot.am/en/2013/01/17/150532/
JANUARY 17, 2013 13:29
They usually single out the part about "two natives of Karabakh"
from Robert Kocharyan's interview, on which the commentaries and
analyses are based on as a rule. There is no
denying, the formulation is not good, but its meaning was political,
rather than "provincial-nepotistic." A struggle between the second
and third presidents would mean a split in the same source, the same
administrative and financial resource. It is theoretically possible,
but in a normal, "classic" situation, that resource can serve either
one or another, i.e. the "joint" candidate of the government. I think
that's what the second president was trying to say.
Two other reasons given by the second president are comparably
less talked about. "I didn't want to participate in forming a very
unpleasant format of a struggle between the three presidents, which I
am sure is harmful for the country." "A search for political compromise
has turned into political retail in Armenia." If we disregard for
a moment who says that, those judgments are absolutely right and
praiseworthy in themselves. Particularly, the really unpleasant format
of the "three presidents" suggests that they should say bad things
about each other, and their statements create a standard for other
citizens, regardless of whether those citizens hate or like the current
and former presidents. However, that format, which is harmful for
the state, started immediately after the change of power in 1998 when
Kocharyan's propagandists started to talk about the "former regime,"
"revanchism" and stuff like that, mentioning the first president in
that context. When Ter-Petrossian returned to politics in September
2007, the mentioned format became complete. It seems to me that all
those who can influence society's opinion should show some delicacy
when they talk about the former presidents - surely criticizing their
mistakes - and the latter should not engage in "close combat" with
anyone, particularly with each other, in order that society doesn't
figuratively see their "bruises." Scenes don't make citizens respect
the state more.
As for "retail" in politics, which is sometimes called realpolitik,
it is an unpleasant thing too. However, frankly speaking, I would
sometimes prefer that there was that bargaining. For example, in
February 2008 or even earlier. It would be better, if the government
was engaged in political bargaining, negotiated, bargained, rather than
"firmly" decided to shoot people.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
http://www.aravot.am/en/2013/01/17/150532/
JANUARY 17, 2013 13:29
They usually single out the part about "two natives of Karabakh"
from Robert Kocharyan's interview, on which the commentaries and
analyses are based on as a rule. There is no
denying, the formulation is not good, but its meaning was political,
rather than "provincial-nepotistic." A struggle between the second
and third presidents would mean a split in the same source, the same
administrative and financial resource. It is theoretically possible,
but in a normal, "classic" situation, that resource can serve either
one or another, i.e. the "joint" candidate of the government. I think
that's what the second president was trying to say.
Two other reasons given by the second president are comparably
less talked about. "I didn't want to participate in forming a very
unpleasant format of a struggle between the three presidents, which I
am sure is harmful for the country." "A search for political compromise
has turned into political retail in Armenia." If we disregard for
a moment who says that, those judgments are absolutely right and
praiseworthy in themselves. Particularly, the really unpleasant format
of the "three presidents" suggests that they should say bad things
about each other, and their statements create a standard for other
citizens, regardless of whether those citizens hate or like the current
and former presidents. However, that format, which is harmful for
the state, started immediately after the change of power in 1998 when
Kocharyan's propagandists started to talk about the "former regime,"
"revanchism" and stuff like that, mentioning the first president in
that context. When Ter-Petrossian returned to politics in September
2007, the mentioned format became complete. It seems to me that all
those who can influence society's opinion should show some delicacy
when they talk about the former presidents - surely criticizing their
mistakes - and the latter should not engage in "close combat" with
anyone, particularly with each other, in order that society doesn't
figuratively see their "bruises." Scenes don't make citizens respect
the state more.
As for "retail" in politics, which is sometimes called realpolitik,
it is an unpleasant thing too. However, frankly speaking, I would
sometimes prefer that there was that bargaining. For example, in
February 2008 or even earlier. It would be better, if the government
was engaged in political bargaining, negotiated, bargained, rather than
"firmly" decided to shoot people.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN