Three In A Boat (To Say Nothing of the Dog’s Head)
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
Published: 14:05:11 – 30/04/2012
As part of the campaign, one of the TV channels hosted Vartan Oskanian
running second on the ticket of the Prosperous Armenia Party. He said
that 4 years ago the situation in Armenia was much better and a two
digit growth was reported several years running, even though it is
thought to be exaggerated or speculative in structure.
It goes without saying that the social and economic situation in
Armenia was better four years ago, especially for ordinary citizens.
Experts, economists, the government may argue and prove in
professional terms that the reason for today’s decline is the
dangerous and wrong balloon of growth four years ago. However, the
citizens know only one indicator of evaluation. When was easier to
earn their living and support their children, now or four years ago?
The rest is the same speculation, as the growth of four or five years
ago is speculatively explained by the government. In this sense,
Vartan Oskanian is right when he says it is necessary to bring up the
issue of responsibility now because it will ensure the most optimal
way to effectiveness in future.
At the same time, there is another aspect, or perhaps even the main
aspect of the issue. It is systemic issues in Armenia – constraints of
political and economic freedoms, a closed economic and political
system, criminal and unconstitutional cohesion of the government and
business and maintenance of this system through unconstitutional
methods.
The other issues – economic, political, social, psychological,
cultural, legal consciousness, human resource – are the consequences
of these basic vices.
During the election campaign the society often hears pronouncements
that it was different before. Moreover, they often hear that formerly
a lot of things were better, even model. These pronouncements, hints,
contexts are made regularly, the citizens hear examples from the
Armenian National Congress leaders who were in government till 1998,
as well as from Vartan Oskanian.
In other words, two pillars of the political system of Armenia, the
first and the second presidents, are trying to hint to the public with
the help of their supporters that everything was different during
their time, and a lot of things were better.
At least it is not honest to talk to the society this way. It is the
same manipulation spirit of trust to change which the government is
trying to play now.
It is impossible to have a good government with good tendencies and
correct content and logic from which a bad system is suddenly born.
If Kocharyan’s government was born from Ter-Petrosyan’s government, it
means the spirit of that government felt good and comfortable in
Ter-Petrosyan’s government, it means that Ter-Petrosyan’s system had
people with such mentality, this system of values was encouraged,
reaching a level of ability for a coup.
It is impossible to have positive tendencies of development, modern
values and approaches in Robert Kocharyan’s system, which are suddenly
turned upside down as soon as Serzh Sargsyan becomes president, and
Tigran Sargsyan becomes prime minister.
After all, since 1995 the electoral systems and the judicial system
have been mutated in Armenia, in 1995 the function of forming
government was seized from the citizens of Armenia and handed to the
military-feudal system which underwent some technological
`modernization’ resulting in change of correlation of the military and
feudal elements in favor of the feudal system.
In fact, the issue of effective governance persists in any system, and
it cannot be argued. In the same totalitarian system one can govern
effectively, while others may govern ineffectively.
In Armenia, however, the problem is systemic, fundamental. In other
words, the problem is not effective or ineffective governance but the
starting points – Constitution, open political and economic systems,
promotion of the right to vote, an independent judicial system.
This is the main issue and not the working hours of the government or
the multiplier effect of building in Yerevan during the term of each
president.
Hence, it is necessary to discuss these fundamental, original issues,
the ways of their rapid solution. Discussions in this context must not
play subtly on situational `advantages’ of the former ones to justify
themselves but apologize to the society honestly for systemic
irregularities, legal shortcomings, mutation of values, thereby
guaranteeing in the least extent that there is full acknowledgement of
challenges facing the state and sincere intention and will. Afterwards
the ability for their implementation will come.
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments25995.html