NECESSARY TO LEARN TO WIN
5429.html
14:17:35 – 06/10/2009
Interview By Siranuysh Papyan
Interview with the literary and art critic Vardan Jaloyan
In your opinion what is the opposition and what functions it has. Which
is the role of the opposition within the public?
Obviously, in our public during the last ten years, enormous changes
took place, first of all the image of the city changed. And if the
image changed ,this means that many proprietors changed. Logically,
also the structure of the government changed, in other words their
power enhanced. This is a rule of politics, who acts, enhances their
position.
As to the opposition, there is a phrase "political culture". This
is of course a relative notion I don’t mean it is connected with the
country’s cultural development. More, it is connected with people’s
experience. In the post-Soviet societies, people have little experience
of resisting and much experience of obeying. This is the main problem
of the opposition. On the other hand, the paradox of the opposition is
that nearly the 60 percent of the population is against the present
government.
The fact that the 90 percent of the population is oppositional is
stressed very much.
It is exaggerated. The problem is that if the resting thirty percent
understood their interest they would add to the others. The point is
that if you do not have enough experience to resist you are obvious to
say "nothing will be changes anyway" and you are likely not to vote
for the opposition. This is a paradox. In other words, people do not
see what political steps are needed to reach what we need. The same
goes for the opposition.
If we return to the question on the opposition, we have to define
what government is. It is a group of people whose interests have been
taken into account. And whose interests are not taken into account,
they become the opposition. And how a man whose interests have been
ignored have to act. Very simply: they have to go out and demand,
explain that their interests have been ignored. And from this point
the main problem of the opposition is to take into consideration
the rights of those people whom the government ignored. Of course,
a political figure is obvious to have interests: they want to become
a parliamentarian, president or prime minister.
Is it the same in case of the opposition?
Of course, there must be some interest. Political figures are a
little in love with themselves which hinders them from understanding
well the interests of other people. But for this, a different kind
of organization is needed. For example, the way of organization
of political opposition is known from Lenin. Lenin said there are
conflicting classes, classes represent parties and leaders head
these parties. This structure cannot work today. It was seen very
well during the 2007 parliamentary elections. People understood that a
party represents a leader and the leader represents the party. In other
words, the Impeachment alliance made an invention here. It introduced
a format which is against the power of leaders and parties. This was
logically followed by Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s movement. In essence,
that was not a party movement because there were many groups and all
of them had in common the struggle. I want to say that the non-party
way of struggle maybe very effective. When the doors are open and
everyone may enter and leave. But this is not the main question. I
think today our main question is to understand our citizens’ wish
which is very difficult.
Is it difficult for the opposition too?
Especially for the opposition. Because the government with the help of
TV, show business and TV series may force people’s interests making
them think that those are their interests. In other words, it is
necessary to take into account that the possibilities to force people
their ideology are fantastic now. They will not let that hegemony,
the ideological governance fail somehow. And from this point it is
a strong struggle for our opposition to learn not only a frontal
struggle but also positional. The positional struggle brings about
the breakdown of hegemony.
Now, the Congress is near to this phase. Lenin has such a word:
revolutions take place when above they cannot and below they do not
want. The fact that those above fail is more important because an
ordinary citizen is optimist, tolerant. And it is important that
the spit happen in above. When it happens, it creates possibilities
for frontal actions. For example, Levon Ter-Petrosyan was able to
arouse a split in the economic and political leaderships. Of course,
this experience cannot be considered successful if it does not result
in revolution.
In general, new critical situations are formed very unpredictably for
both the government and the opposition. In the meantime, the opposition
is able and has political culture to lead positional struggle. If we
compare with the succeeded attempts of revolution in Ukraine, Georgia
we see that there they had not only frontal but also positional
struggle. I think that Armenian opposition has to learn how to win
but also how to lose. Failure does not have to confuse the opposition.
Do you think the opposition lost?
The opposition lost. If March 1 is a victory which made the government
show who they are in reality so the May election was really a defeat.
In your opinion, what are oppositional parties or forces?
There are different types of opposition. There are conservatives,
socialists, liberals etc., but in Armenia, the oppositional line
does not cross the borderline of socialists and liberals. There are
two parties in Armenia the Republican and the Bargavach Hayastan and
are parties of enterprisers. There are parties of enterprisers and
political parties. And since the economic factor is more important
than the political one consequently, those political parties are
left out. In order to exist for the others they need to present
some other interest apart from the economic one. This line is always
crossed by the Republican and BHK parties. They maybe called clans
but not parties.
Neither Dashnaktsutyun is deprived of this feature. No party is
deprived from the point that its activities are always connected with
economic interests. A man maybe independent to greater or less extent,
but the point is its amount. If you want, you may consider the OYP an
oppositional party too. When the compromise becomes a betrayal… the
compromise of that people ruined the party. If you are a political
party, you have to stop dreaming of becoming a party of enterprisers
on day. I am sorry, but it requires other talents. Only the Republican
and the BHK parties have these talents.
Many dwell on Congress’s weakening and that on September 18, Levon
Ter-Petrosyan did not tell what the public expected.
I am not a political figure and I cannot judge Levon
Ter-Petrosyan. First, I am speaking about general regularities
and second the political crisis in Armenia may explode at any
time. This is too important. Do you remember Lenin’s joke: October
24 is early October 26 is already late. A political figure has to
feel the political moment and realizing it, they have to mobilize
and be ready for a frontal clash. But if there is no possibility,
they do not need to have exaggerated ideas.
Right now, I do not see any determined force because the border opening
is a very ambiguous phenomenon. Consequently, the developments are to
be given a certain course for the political forces to decide the way
out. From this point, I do not envy the president because he is forced
to give the course. But if he gives that course, and the ambiguity
disappears, the government will be posed to danger. On the other hand,
if the course has positive direction he will strengthen his legitimacy.
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview-lrahos1