– Recently you said that Robert Kocharyan represents more danger to Serzh Sargsyan than Levon Ter-Petrosyan does. What is the real danger? Is it becoming more dangerous or no?
– I think that the events of March 1 showed that Armenia cannot return to the status-quo that existed before those events. Due to this reason if ex-president Kocharyan tries to return or influence on the ongoing processes, he will affect the policy of the incumbent president. His return will mean an attempt to return to the situation before the events of March 1. If Kocharyan tries to return, he will automatically harm Sargsyan, cause crisis and the situation may explode again. The Armenian government, especially Kocharyan’s government, don’t understand that having an active and strong opposition is good for everyone. Let people organize demonstrations, rallies, the more they do the better for them. It is not dangerous to the power and it is not dangerous to state security either. Healthy opposition supports development of democracy. Kocharyan’s return will be a message that the country is returning to the situation before the events of March 1, i.e. to a more authoritarian regime.
– Do you think that Kocharyan may return to active politics?
– If he tries to return, the people will not accept him. Besides that, Moscow and Washington will be against it too. I think that Moscow and Washington don’t want it. Weak Armenia is another thing, but neither Moscow, Washington, nor Brussels want Armenia to be instable and dangerous. Now Serzh Sargsyan has to consolidate his powers, make changes and reforms, most of which are against the interests of Kocharyan’s team. We have come to a point, where if we want to fight corruption and develop, they need to go against the interests of certain groups of people. Generally there are confrontations in our state system.
– How can you explain that confrontation? Does Serzh Sargsyan have to leave Kocharyan’s team in power or he needs them to keep the power?
– When Serzh Sargsyan took the power he also inherited this system and situation. If he wants to develop this country, he should change the system. There is no alternative. When I say that we have come to a point when the situation should change it doesn’t mean that we endorse Ter-Petrosyan or Sargsyan. I am more thinking of the future generations and what we will leave for them. Even if the first president comes, the system is the same and the crisis, the problems are the same as well. Till now there haven’t been alternative policies. Neither the opposition nor the government have strategic plans.
– Can those people change that system if they are the bearers and the ones who built that system?
– The system cannot stay the same anyway because the power has less legitimacy now than before. The economic situation is important as well. Our economy is not open and the impact of the world crisis is delayed but not disappeared. I think that we will feel that anyway. I think that the government is faced with a choice either to survive by trying to go against the powerful interests, oligarchs, monopolists, or not to do anything. If the power does not do anything, it will not survive.
– You also said that there is no significant danger from Ter-Petrosyan and he can only manipulate groups of people well. Does it mean that Ter-Petrosyan’s movement cannot change anything in the country?
– I think that the first president and the incumbent one have many similarities and common interests with each other than each of them with Kocharyan. Maybe I am mistaken but as I see Ter-Petrosyan is always holding out his hand to Sargsyan. However the latter does not want to shake that hand yet.
– But Serzh Sargsyan says that it is the vice versa and his has hold out his hand to the opposition and they refuse to shake his hand.
– The first natural reaction of the authorities is to show that they are not weak. But in this situation they should talk to each other. When Levon ter-Petrosyan was president I was almost his enemy because corruption and other system malformations started from his period. Now I think that Ter-Petrosyan’s factor is positive not as a candidate but as a transformation figure which can move the system and make the authorities think about the future. The strategy of organizing opposition rallies is old for me. I am not for the opposition’s demand for new elections because it is not realistic. The authorities don’t have any other way of keeping the power but to perform a political will. Eventually both of them will come to a point, when they will have to talk to each other and respect each other’s opinions.
– Many people think that the authorities have made positive changes mainly due to Ter-Petrosyan’s movement and pressure. What will make the government make changes if the opposition stops its struggle? Maybe they are interested in this situation and keeping the power.
– The problem is that the reformers’ group of the government (Tigran Sargsyan, Nerses Yeritsyan, etc.) does not have enough power to make drastic changes. I agree with the opinion that the changes made so far have been a result of the pressure on the part of the movement. The president of the country should agree with the fact that we have reached a point, when he has to make changes. Politically the situation is like a wall, which means that neither the opposition nor the government are winners. All they are losing. This situation may continue and the most dangerous thing is economic crisis, which will be in winter. I think that the government should turn to the opposition with its face and find a way to develop the country with them.
– Do you mean that Serzh Sargsyan’s position is weak now?
– Yes, it is weak and limited, and the reformer members of his government feel like in cells. In this government they have too limited powers to do something. Now they can’t go against oligarchs who have great financial and political power.
– Do they want to?
– I don’t know. As a political scientist I am expressing my opinion that they should do that. In America oligarchs had dominating power 100 years ago too, but Roosevelt decided to shake them and bring back to the system and make them become legitimate again (as Khachatur Sukiasian did in our country). In the same way the oligarchs of Armenia should be returned to legitimacy and they should respect the law. In the US it was done by a strong president. Armenia needs a strong president as well, who will be able to resist the system and change the roles of oligarchs in it. On the other hand if the president was as strong as Roosevelt, it would not be enough either because the state is weak too. There are two solutions, where the existing status-quo is not included. Even if president Sargsyan wakes up in the morning as an angel, it will not be enough either. Does he have all the tools to make changes? I don’t think so. Look at the ministers, at the state administration system. The problem is not the individuals, but the system and structural changes. For example, if I were a part of the government, I would suggest to release the political prisoners as a practical step.
– You said that the authorities don’t take the hand the opposition has hold out to them in order not to seem weak. Won’t they seem to be weak if they release the political prisoners?
– No. They will show that they are strong. Now the committee in charge of investigating the events of March 1 is more dangerous to the government than helpful. It is not clear yet whether it is a legal or political issue. The second practical step I would suggest concerns MPs. There are many MPs who are violating the law and are involved in business activities. Now, when we have a new speaker let’s make the businessmen MPs respect the law.
– Those MPs are very powerful and as you said the president’s influence is weak now. Can the president make those people resign in such conditions?
– Those people are more businessmen than MPs, thus they are interested in keeping their wealth and power. From this point of view politically it is not so difficult to separate and manipulate them. Don’t forget that those oligarchs are competing with each other and it will be hard for them to unite and stand against the state. Some of them have grown so much that now they are thinking of how they can keep what they have and pass to their children and grandchildren. It means that now it is time to act.
– There are rumors saying that time of settling the conflict of Karabakh is close. Russian FM Sergey Lavrov has made an announcement about it as well. According to your opinion, which phase are we in and is it possible to sign a peace agreement?
– Due to lack of legitimacy the government of Armenia is trying to be success in foreign policy. Now the impression is that the priority issue in our foreign policy is the Armenian-Turkish relations and possibility of opening the borders but not the issue of Karabakh. In a word, I don’t worry about it at all and I don’t agree with the media publications stating that the government will give Karabakh. However, now the issue of Karabakh is more important than before because after the Georgian war it is the last frozen conflict in the region. The Russians and Americans are relying on the Minsk group format because both of them are afraid that Azerbaijan may take a bad example from Georgia. Azeri people think that Georgia was not wrong to chose this way of conflict settlement but was wrong not to chose the right time when it is not strong enough yet. Azerbaijan will not make that mistake. The other important factor is that Azerbaijan’s approach to this issue has not changed, that is why I think that the conflict may be settled in the near future. Azerbaijan’s policy is that they are trying to prolong the possible settlement of the conflict, steal time until they feel that they are ready to solve the problem with military power. They are sure that in 8-10 years their military potential will be so strong that they will be able to solve their problems.
– Do you mean that the rumors saying that there have been some arrangements and agreements are baseless?
– Yes. There have been two main obstacles for the conflict settlement since Oskanyan’s time. The first obstacle is the issue of returning Azerbaijan’s territories, which is subject to many disagreements and controversy of approaches. And the second obstacle is the referendum. Azerbaijan is demanding to organize national referendum to give an opportunity to all its citizens to participate in it as well. It is absurd. The Americans are suggesting to organize a referendum for the Armenians of Karabakh and Azeri people who have left Karabakh. This is a normal solution which enables to leave the solution of the problem for the future. Azerbaijan is disputing the issue of referendum only for the purpose of stealing time as it has been doing since the meeting in Key-West in 2005. As for Lavrov’s announcement, there can be different opinions about the same cup: one may say it is full of water, and others may say it is not full yet. Lavrov is right to say that there are two obstacles. But these are not only two obstacles, but two big obstacles, as a result of which we may say that we are close to the solution when the issue is still far from being solved.