Authority as objective in itself or ensured changes
Q&A with ARF Supreme Body of Armenia representative Armen Rustamian
Yerkir/am
21 May 04
Q: Mr. Rustamian, what conclusions can be made of the political
developments of the passed year?
A: Indeed, it is time to take a break and look back at the developments
of the passed several months and give a proper assessment.
The first wave of tensions has passed and has left its consequences. It
is obvious that the opposition plans to raise another wave of
tensions. What was the logic and reasons of the first wave? They should
be divided into two parts: subjective which includes the strategy
of the opposition and objective which is displeasure with certain
unsolved problems in the country. Let us touch upon them separately.
For one year on, the opposition, not recognizing the results of
the elections, was trying to spread this view in the society and
raise a wave of protest to artificially sharpen tensions so that
revolutionary moods are shaped and the end the opposition appears to
be the party that can relieve the society of the authorities. They
made an impression that they resist the revolutionary passion of the
people and fist try to solve the issue in the constitutional court.
And due to it they come to the parliament. And since the authorities
did not carry out the decision of the court, once more proving their
illegal nature, all the legal ways are closed and the only solution
is revolution. And the events that took place in our country were
the results of that revolutionary behavior. At the same time, the
authorities were accused of forcing them to pursue that way.
This logic is destructive for the country. It also means that the
opposition wants to create a new situation in Armenia and change the
logics of development of the country.
This was challenge to the authorities and the latter had to
respond. Thus, there was a need for an alternative matching the
situation, separating the objective and subjective layers. It was
necessary to point out a solution which would keep the country safe
from shocks and would bring it back to normal life, fostering reforms
and making the solution of current issues effective.
And as a result of this analysis, the Dashnaktsutiun made its
well-known announcement which pointed out an alternative and said
that otherwise there may be a conflict and nobody will benefit from
it. The alternative is not the way of conflict but a way of passing the
conflict to political field. This is what a dialogue implies. After
that, a new situation would be created in Armenia. We suggested the
mechanisms of reaching a political agreement. From that moment on,
two processes started developing in the country.
The first was the continuation of the opposition strategy which was not
rejected by the opposition, and the second was the need to fix the need
of a dialogue within the society mentality. There was a competition
of two approaches and it ended in the victory of the second and more
civilized one which is the dialogue. This is proved by the public
feedback and the discussions with the intelligentsia organized by ARF.
An important milestone in these developments was the European Council
(EC) resolution which had certain remarks and suggestions in which the
dialogue was underlined as a priority for breaking the deadlock. Thus,
this idea definitely proves its vitality.
The result of overcoming the first wave of tensions is that today
we have a situation with a better articulated public demand and
steps to be taken. These positive tendencies should be considered,
as well as the negative sides. The objective is now to create a new
political situation in the country which is also approved by the
opposition. There is a positive tendency in the latest tendency which
is that the political forces prioritize creation of such a situation.
Q: What does the new political situation imply?
A: We should admit that a great part of the society had an active
participation in this process. The society certainly demands the
following: there is no need for an abrupt regime change, but there
is a need for ensured, radical changes and a political agreement
over it. This is what we should fix as a formed public demand. Note
that even if many people find regime change as a possible option also
realize that it should be prepared.
Suppose the president resigns and elections take place in 40 days,
anyway if the elections would took place in this situation, there
would be winners and losers. Our today’s electoral resources are
not such as to enable the losers to congratulate the winners. Again
we will have a situation where the elections will be doubted. Thus,
by trying to change the situation we will appear in a worse plight.
Q: Why do you think the dialogue between the authorities and the
opposition does not take place?
A: One of the most important questions is who really wants the
dialogue and who does not and why. It seems the suggestion of the
coalition gave a real chance to the opposition have the authorities
make serious changes in most important issues.
This was not just a right to participate in discussions but an
influential participation, with the right of veto. And in these terms
the dialogue is rejected. I believe this makes clear that there are
forces within the opposition who have the objective to provoke shocks
in the country. This is explained by the simple logics that clashes
are followed by negative consequences. Eventually, the opposition
is to be accounted which will be then criticized by international
organizations and weakened.
The opposition will avoid the charges against it without implementing
any goals of realizing projects or ideas. It will assume the shape
of a force persecuted for political aspirations. In this way, the
consequences of tensions will be more and more discussed than the
reasons of all this. However, this is the way that should be rejected,
since otherwise others will suffer. The impacts will fall on the
country. One should not create artificial problems and then try to
solve them on national level.
Q: What steps do you see for emerging from the situation?
A: Since there is a public demand for an agreement, the
authorities-opposition relations should gain a new quality. Today’s
relations are antagonistic and lead to self-destruction.
The authorities-opposition clash should have a creative nature. What
we call the fight of opponents is quite right, but it should take
place through joint efforts which is demanded by the simplest, classic
dialectic principle. Fight without uniting goals is really destructive
and unity without fight is inert. We should avoid these two extremes.
Thus, preserving contradictions should not make them destructive. The
country stability should be raised to a new level so that it really
serves strengthening of our foreign positions for securing better
development of the country. Thus, we should continue the process of
political agreement and we should name the issues we have. First of
all, we should prevent a second destructive wave.
Both the authorities and the opposition should clarify their future
steps. Let us start from the authorities. It must take care of
solving actual issues including those already pointed out by the
coalition. Regardless of whether the opposition joined or not, these
issues must be focused on. Better mechanism for their salvation should
be developed.