Tweet
U.S. AMBASSADOR DOES NOT BELIEVE SERZH SARGSYAN?
Hakob Badalyan, Political Commentator
Comments - Tuesday, 25 February 2014, 17:13
A significant part of the citizens of Armenia were rightly angered by
U.S. Ambassador John Heffern supporting the mandatory funded pension in
Armenia as something necessary for Armenia. He expressed his support
in a recent conference held in Yerevan.
A few days earlier Serzh Sargsyan had announced that though 80% of
citizens are against the mandatory funded pension, the government
will carry out the reform because it has a future importance.
In fact, the U.S. ambassador does not believe Serzh Sargsyan. i.e. he
does not think that 80% of citizens is against the system. The point
is that otherwise democratic countries make other decisions if the
majority of the society is against a particular decision.
The United States is a state where democratic values are the standard.
These values have helped a young state to become a world power within
two centuries. What does the U.S. government do when 80% of people are
against something? Does the government impose its decisions on 80%
or does it try to take their opinion into account and discuss them
until more citizens are for than against them. After all, it is clear
that it is never possible to achieve 100% of agreement but when the
vast majority is against, one should at least stop to discuss the
issue and come up with a new proposal.
It is clear why the vast majority is against. And it is not just a
social problem because an enormous number of people are against who do
not care about paying 5000 drams more. People are against because the
reform is carried out by a government they do not consider theirs,
they do not trust. They do not consider the state theirs to pay it
with confidence that they are going to receive it back later.
This is the problem, and it should be clear to the U.S. ambassador.
Not because he is the representative of a democracy but because
he is one of the officials who are well-aware of the economic and
political system of Armenia and call for fight against monopoly,
creation of a competitive environment, independence of courts, fight
against corruption.
When a citizen knows that he or she does not form the government that
resolves the small or big problems of the country but electoral fraud
and other methods of falsification, he or she does not want to pay
one extra luma. Moreover, it is a surprise why a citizen of Armenia
continues to pay taxes at all, considering the examples of careless
and cynical waste of the state budget by the legislature and executive,
such as the City Hall of Yerevan.
A citizen wonders whether they will not steal the money that he or
she will save for his old age if they currently steal everything,
from power to the resources of the state.
And the question occurs: why do you allow them to steal? You let them
steal until the state appeared on the verge of bankruptcy, didn't you?
This is already another conversation. If public tolerance fed the
system that has robbed the state to the verge of bankruptcy, why feed
it more?
It is another issue if someone thinks that this will eventually force
the public to rebel against the stealing system. But this is already
another issue.
- See more at:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/31977#sthash.uhgwyt0C.dpuf
Hakob Badalyan, Political Commentator
Comments - Tuesday, 25 February 2014, 17:13
A significant part of the citizens of Armenia were rightly angered by
U.S. Ambassador John Heffern supporting the mandatory funded pension in
Armenia as something necessary for Armenia. He expressed his support
in a recent conference held in Yerevan.
A few days earlier Serzh Sargsyan had announced that though 80% of
citizens are against the mandatory funded pension, the government
will carry out the reform because it has a future importance.
In fact, the U.S. ambassador does not believe Serzh Sargsyan. i.e. he
does not think that 80% of citizens is against the system. The point
is that otherwise democratic countries make other decisions if the
majority of the society is against a particular decision.
The United States is a state where democratic values are the standard.
These values have helped a young state to become a world power within
two centuries. What does the U.S. government do when 80% of people are
against something? Does the government impose its decisions on 80%
or does it try to take their opinion into account and discuss them
until more citizens are for than against them. After all, it is clear
that it is never possible to achieve 100% of agreement but when the
vast majority is against, one should at least stop to discuss the
issue and come up with a new proposal.
It is clear why the vast majority is against. And it is not just a
social problem because an enormous number of people are against who do
not care about paying 5000 drams more. People are against because the
reform is carried out by a government they do not consider theirs,
they do not trust. They do not consider the state theirs to pay it
with confidence that they are going to receive it back later.
This is the problem, and it should be clear to the U.S. ambassador.
Not because he is the representative of a democracy but because
he is one of the officials who are well-aware of the economic and
political system of Armenia and call for fight against monopoly,
creation of a competitive environment, independence of courts, fight
against corruption.
When a citizen knows that he or she does not form the government that
resolves the small or big problems of the country but electoral fraud
and other methods of falsification, he or she does not want to pay
one extra luma. Moreover, it is a surprise why a citizen of Armenia
continues to pay taxes at all, considering the examples of careless
and cynical waste of the state budget by the legislature and executive,
such as the City Hall of Yerevan.
A citizen wonders whether they will not steal the money that he or
she will save for his old age if they currently steal everything,
from power to the resources of the state.
And the question occurs: why do you allow them to steal? You let them
steal until the state appeared on the verge of bankruptcy, didn't you?
This is already another conversation. If public tolerance fed the
system that has robbed the state to the verge of bankruptcy, why feed
it more?
It is another issue if someone thinks that this will eventually force
the public to rebel against the stealing system. But this is already
another issue.
- See more at:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/31977#sthash.uhgwyt0C.dpuf