– It is a long time that people speak about dialog between the authorities and the opposition, but no dialog has taken place so far. We wander who is interested in such dialog. Generally is there need for such dialog?
– Dialog is important for helping the political tense environment and establishing an environment of tolerance. Certainly there have been different dialogs of different formats. Now there is a group consisting of opposition powers, which I think is united and is critical to the government, thus there has not been any dialog between these parties so far. In order to organize such dialog the opposition should clarify who they mean by the authorities. Also, the authorities, in their turn, should clarify who they mean by saying opposition. We have called on the opposition to organize such dialog and many opposition parties have agreed. Now we are cooperating with them, and even are cooperating with some of them within the coalition agreement. Those powers, with which we are cooperating now, are not opposition any more. These powers should realize that by saying authorities they mean first of all the president of the republic. However, they haven’t given a correct definition yet. They should recognize the resolution of the Constitutional court.
– Levon Ter-Petrosyan has announced that they are ready to participate in a dialog with the authorities “in consideration of the fact that they have become a real political factor.”
– Yes, but what he means is that they don’t recognize the legitimacy but realize the fact of being a political factor. But I say no, they are the reality and that factor. The authorities should recognize them as a political factor. As for the status of the authorities, it is a constitutional and legal reality.
– The opposition is blamed of demanding to set detainees free before dialog as a precondition. In fact you have preconditions too.
– It is not a precondition. The government should understand that the opposition is Levon Ter-Petrosyan together with the political powers that are supporting him. The opposition should recognize the resolution of the Constitutional Court.
– In fact, if the parties don’t accept those preconditions, it will be a deadlock and there can’t be a dialog.
– It is not a deadlock. If we look at the dynamics of situation stabilization since the election, we will see that the environment of intolerance has significantly changed. It is the best stimulus for organizing a dialog. Dialog cannot take place in an environment of enmity and intolerance. Now we are passing that phase.
– Mr. Nikoyan, the society has problems with credibility in the society. Is it more important for the government to have a dialog with the opposition or the society?
– I think that having a dialog with the society is more important. However, in all countries the governments are in permanent dialog with the society in terms of government formation, budget implementation and other procedures. The government should understand the problems of the society and try to solve those problems. Yes, that’s right, besides economic and social problems we also have problems with credibility and fairness. The government knows that and if it takes certain steps, it means that the government is in dialog.
– Don’t you think that if the government fails to come to an agreement with the society, the latter may be disappointed not only of the government, but also the opposition?
– I don’t think so. I think that there have been significant changes in the consciousness of the society during the past month. The reason people don’t trust the government is not that people like Levon Ter-Petrosyan, but the fact that they want to live in a better country. People are participating in rallies to complain of their community heads, judges, policemen, municipalities and other state institutions. The state, the government must see that and work out those shortcomings. Of course it is desirable to have a dialog with the opposition because some part of the society is supporting the opposition.
– There are evident disagreements within the RPA concerning implementation of the PACE. The NA speaker Tigran Torosyan says that only those recommendations should be done, which correspond to the interests of Armenia, but David Harutyunyan says that all the recommendations correspond to the interests of Armenia and should be done. What is your opinion?
– I would not say it is disagreement. I heard David Harutyunyan saying in Strasburg that it is great and the coalition should adopt it is a project to be implemented. I don’t understand this. Did we have to go to Strasburg and hear great ideas in order to implement them? Didn’t we understand that? Was it something new for us? If there is a situation in our country, when it is not time yet to make amendments to the law on marches, rallies and demonstrations, we can delay it for more two months.
– What if Armenia is deprived of its vote during the summer session of the Euro Union?
– I think that our primary interests are our state interests, which include also good relations with the international community, as well as the image of our country in the world. Those requirements don’t say new things; those problems exist in our society. I think that all those problems will be solved in the future and we need time. After the events of March 1, when we made amendments to that law, I understood that it would be necessary to revise the law in the future. However, I also knew that those changes would be positive at that time. Those changes were done for the purpose of helping the society. As for conducting independent legal proceedings of the events of March 1, I think that judicial proceedings are in process, are open to the society, and the newspapers are writing about those proceedings as well. As the events that happened in Armenia were unprecedented and the capacity is too big, it is hard to define the share of guilt of every person clearly and ideally. The police must make it sure no one is punished for political views. Some people burnt those cars, stole. There were organizers, weren’t there? The society must get the answers to these questions.
– Also some people shot, didn’t they?
– Yes, they must give answer to those questions. However, as there were too many people there, the corresponding bodies need time to find out everything.
– Isn’t it strange to you that 10 people were killed and more than 200 people were injured as a result of shootings and explosions but the police has not arrested anyone who is accused in shooting or using a gun?
– I would like to know how they were killed, who killed them, and whether there was an alternative or no. What if the police proves that there was no alternative? I mean if it is proven that if it did not happen there would be more victims. For example, let’s say if someone has decided to commit a bigger crime resulting in more victims and it was the reason why those people became victims. Everyone wants to know the answers to such questions.