In an interview with ArmInfo, a lawmaker from Elx (Exit- editor's note) bloc parliamentary faction , leader of the Republic Party, ex-Prime Minister of Armenia Aram Sargsyan justifies the necessity and motivation for voicing the names of the perpetrators of the March 1 tragedy. He shares the vision of the Elk bloc in the aspect of t internal political problems of Armenia. He also comments on the appointment of the fourth president of Armenia.
What, in your opinion, is the motivation of the Republicans' consent to the inclusion in the agenda of the parliament of the statement of the block "Elk" on March 1, turned quite unexpected for many people?
Let’s begin with the fact I personally have no doubt that at the appropriate moment the Republicans will simply vote "against" the adoption of this statement. What is to this unexpected consent, they just want to demonstrate the absence of fear about this rather sick issue, the lack of fear of a discussion on this issue, to demonstrate its alleged desire to disclose the details of the causes of this tragedy. In reality, there is nothing new here, the authorities have been talking about the need to determine the perpetrators of the deaths of ten young people since 2008. It's like corruption, everyone is struggling with it, and it not only does not disappear anywhere, even its mechanisms do not change. Therefore, I am convinced that the current authorities have, for understandable reasons, no desire to bring the investigation of the first March tragedy to a logical conclusion by now. Given that the current regime was in power precisely as a result of falsifications leading, in fact, by March 1, he is undoubtedly the legal successor of the former regime. In this sense, it is not necessary to expect justice from the ruling party and its leader.
And isn't it a motivation, for example, the recent factual and public call of Republican Samvel Nikoyan Robert Kocharyan to shed light on the names of the perpetrators of the first March victims?
In my opinion, the matter of investigating the events of 10 years ago by istlef is still not closed primarily because of internal reasons. I am referring to Serzh Sargsyan's personal relations with Robert Kocharyan. In this light, the question for me is still the question of the identity of the person who gave the order to the armed police to attack people sleeping in tents on Liberty Square in conditions when the peak of the protest activity of citizens that took place on February 26 has already passed and it has been waning. Another question is whether this decision was a sole made decision or was it taken by a group of people? In this light, the appeal of Samvel Nikoyan to Robert Kocharian can only be welcomed. As the society needs to be finally explained who made the decision on the suppression of the March 1 protest actions. And if Kocharyan did not change his character, he should give an extremely clear answer to this question-charge. He should explain whether this decision was his personal or it was agreed with Serzh Sargsyan, with other persons. As for the motivation of the Republicans, which prompted them suddenly to embark on the path of seeking the truth, I do not think that this was done due to some special political activity of Kocharyan. I personally do not see this today. But if the Republicans agreed to hold parliamentary hearings on the March 1 issue with the aim of suppressing Kocharyan's possible activity through his exposure, I do not see why this can be prevented, for example, by the Elk bloc. Robert Kocharian and Serzh Sargsyan broke up and disorganized our country with the same zeal and any exposure of their crimes, unequivocally, proceeds from the interests of society, and, hence, of our own.
Do you really think that the protest mass gathered on the streets of Yerevan on March 1, 2008 was far from a transformation into a critical mass capable of changing the regime?
For me, this fact is axiomatic and indisputable. In such a situation, there was no need to go on beating, dispersing the participants of the action within the declining activity condition - there was not such a need and could not be by default. People in tents at that time simply did not represent a threat to the regime at all, since in that number of them they were already incapable of leading events in the direction of his dismissal. I think that it was also evident for Serzh Sargsyan, who repeatedly headed power structures within diffferent causes. The latter were perfectly in control of the situation and in those days of 2008, according to them, they listened, took pictures of what was happening and, accordingly, realized its essence. However, from the use of asymmetric power pressure against the protesters, for some reason, the power did not restrain it. More than 6,000 policemen and servicemen of internal troops attacked 2,000 sleeping people in that morning, this was also reflected in the reports of international organizations. The violence against its own citizens, which continued on Mashtots Avenue, was very much like the actions of the invaders in the occupied country. This became a real shame for our country, a disgrace, and the illegitimate authorities cannot clean it off by today.
And anyway, in the spring of 2008, the Armenian society was close, as has never been, to the shift of power. Wasn't there, among the reasons for its failure, in fact, the ANC's mistake also?
The main, and, perhaps, the only mistake was the excessive expectations of external forces and the folding of all the eggs in one basket. In 2008, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, like Stepan Demirchyan, in 2003, had, in my opinion, overly exaggerated expectations from Moscow and had been over-criticized the West, primarily by the EU. And the EU and the US asked for support only after the return of ispired with who knows what Robert Kocharyan from Moscow, when arrested people, political prisoners already appeared in the country and, in fact, everything was already clear. When all the illusory hopes associated with Russia were completely lost, when the "friends" from Moscow stopped responding even to calls. That was the main mistake. In my opinion, for the change of power there are four resources in the nature. The first and main of them is the public resource. The second is the material, financial, the third - the administrative and only the last, the fourth - the external political resource. However, in the case of Armenia, the external political resource firmly ranks second after the public. In 2008, Levon Ter-Petrosyan enjoyed strong popular support and could freely and effectively use the public resource. This, in fact, led to the administrative support of the movement, we were supported from the Prosecutor General's Office, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and we had no problems with finances either. Thus, the slack was given by the foreign policy resource, figuratively speaking, we were betrayed. In my deepest conviction, the same thing happened after the presidential elections in 2003. The revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, undoubtedly, succeeded, among other things, because of the constraints imposed by the regimes on violence of clear external support, the support that we did not have either in 2003 or in 2008. Even today we struggle not only with Serzh Sargsyan or his entourage, we are struggling with the system not only in Armenia, we are fighting the Russian, colonial system with all its imperial resources of influence and pressure. And for the victory over such a system, the external political support is obviously necessary.
To what conclusions did you come, let's say, for the future and whether around all the same underwater reefs, disagreements unfold in the "Elk" bloc to which some media predict almost an imminent collapse?
I see the increased sense of responsibility for own words and actions, a sense of responsibility for the people around us. In contrast, by the way, from the current authorities, the strength and potential of the "Elk" bloc are generated exclusively in society, in our people. Accordingly, any of our plans, any emerging steps, should undoubtedly become public. As for the disagreements about which the press writes, I can say that there is a complete consensus between the leadership of the bloc, for example, regarding the inadmissibility of concentrating power in one hand for the third consecutive term. Unfortunately, the Republican Party does not want to understand this, even paradoxically, even its leader, Serzh Sargsyan. Another example of the consensus of our decisions is the general assessment of the latest parliamentary elections. The RPA, unequivocally, "won" in these elections through the distribution of pre-election bribes. However, we are convinced that in the electoral booth the voter was alone with the ballot and his own conscience. And voted in accordance with their own approaches. Accordingly, in my opinion, there are plenty of examples of consensus in "Yelk". The last example of such a consensus between Nikol Pashinyan, Edmon Marukyan, me, other representatives of our bloc is readiness to realize the desire of the people, who owns power in our country, to oppose the reproduction of Serzh Sargsyan and Co. in power for the third time. Naturally, if such a desire appears among our people, and if it will be voiced, including on the streets and squares. In my opinion, a larger consensus cannot exist in any political force by definition. Accordingly, the future "road map" of the actions of our bloc is entirely dependent on the wishes of society, and not vice versa. From the desires of people who gave their votes to us, who gave us their trust. In the conditions of the new electoral legislation, which has not been tried in practice, people's decision to enter the streets entails the same risks as the decision to stay at home. It is this issue, these risks are being discussed today in our bloc and yes, in the course of these discussions there are different opinions. And yes, this is quite normal, since "Elk" is not singing in unison to the host of the RPA, the main thing is that all these opinions, unequivocally, do not come from the interests of the authorities.
By the way, one of the Russian media today titled the parliamentary election of Armen Sargsyan as: "Almost an Englishman became almost an Armenian queen." Do you agree with both defining "almost"?
I almost agree. Seriously, I know Armen Sargsyan well enough. And I can say that his biography and achievements are certainly indisputable and there is nothing to add. I have no doubt that the motivation for assuming the presidency is dictated by the desire to contribute to the exit of our country from the situation in which it was driven over the past two decades. However, I doubt the atmosphere filled with on duty claps, on duty parliamentary-republican criticism, the atmosphere in which a person with similar merits is appointed to this post, I doubt the prospects of such appointment. I was once again struck by the ability of Republicans to cast a shadow on even the most impeccable person, not to mention politicians. Phenomenal ability to spoil even the most brilliant reputation. I can say that it was quite successful on the day of the presentation of Armen Sargsyan to the parliament, Serzh Sargsyan's entourage. Including artificially exaggerated problems with his citizenship. For me, it remained unclear why the authorities so much needed to introduce into the Constitution an item on compulsory Armenian citizenship in the event that more than 10 million representatives of the nation permanently reside outside Armenia. To necessarily once again step over even the self-corrected amendments to the Constitution? Is it really a crime that has already become common for these people, a crime turned into an urgent necessity for the authorities? Why do you need to include in the Basic Law the points through which you will violate? And there are a lot of similar questions, but there are practically no answers. Accordingly, we can only wait until the time comeс when the authorities will have to answer all these questions.
READ ALL COMMENTS