SERZH SARGSYAN’S DECISION ON LARGE-SCALE OFFENSIVE
HAKOB BADALYAN
15:56 19/03/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
Serzh Sargsyan’s press conference which was his reply to Raffi
Hovannisian seemed to be the continuation of the EPP president Wilfred
Martens’ reply to the letter of the Heritage Party. It seemed that
Martens and Serzh Sargsyan co-drafted their answers in Brussels. Note
that Sargsyan held his press conference after returning from Brussels.
Interestingly, on the same day the press reported that the tax service
and the National Security Service are again checking Civilitas
Foundation.
Most probably, having visited Moscow and Brussels, Serzh Sargsyan has
made a decision on a large-scale offensive or has got an opportunity
for an offensive in all the directions. In the meantime, it seemed
that Serzh Sargsyan is stuck between Moscow and Brussels. After his
return from Brussels the head of the EP foreign committee and deputy
president of the EPP Brok announced that DCFTA and Customs Union are
incompatible.
Serzh Sargsyan again has to choose between two options, which means a
difficult decision to refuse either Russia or Europe.
Hence, Serzh Sargsyan decided to refuse Raffi Hovannisian first. It is
possible that Sargsyan has tried to use Hovannisian’s factor either in
Moscow or in Brussels. Or both. In Moscow he may have succeeded
resisting Putin’s attacks or marking time while in Brussels he may
have tried to get support with the help of Hovannisian’s factor.
Serzh Sargsyan should have cherished, not refused Raffi Hovannisian.
However, this is what Sargsyan might be busy doing. In this case, the
only way of cherishing remains refusal. Serzh Sargsyan is unable to
take another step. His press conference is a confession of his
incapability. He cannot even resign because there are oligarchs whom
he cannot compel to do anything, and issues are resolved by asking,
not compelling, and after this resignation Raffi Hovannisian will not
be asked to be president.
There is nothing Serzh Sargsyan can do about Raffi Hovannisian. It is
another issue what he personally thinks and what he is ready for. The
fact is that he lacks power to make necessary and adequate decisions
on how to deal with Raffi Hovannisian. Meanwhile, the society, civil
activists and initiatives have something to do about Hovannisian. It
is a fact that political parties are no longer an effective mechanism
but it has no implications to civic activity unless no generic,
institutional system is formed in this field which will be different
and more efficient than party pyramids.
The addressee of Raffi Hovannisian’s hunger strike is this field, not
the government. Moreover, the government seems to have understood this
very well and is trying to appear as the addressee of the hunger
strike and deny whatever is addressed to it, noting that it is not a
political way of protest, and there is no such politics. In addition,
it should be noted that the same thing was stated by the political
parties, trying to impart Hovannisian’s hunger strike with a political
content and at the same time deprive of meaning or devaluate this
means of struggle by saying this is not a way of doing politics.
This reaction of the government and the so-called party system is
understood. They need to prevent the civil society to feel being the
addressee of Hovannisian’s hunger strike and carry out adequate action
to form an alternative to the traditional party-political-governmental
system. The system always has a chance as long as the formation of
this system is uncertain.