– According to the Economist, compared to 2010 no progress of democratic record has been registered in Armenia in the current year and the country has once again been ranked among states with hybrid regimes. In your opinion, to what extent is this evaluation close to reality?
– I don’t much care about the opinions of such international organizations and magazines because their criteria are linked to their interests. If they have a negative attitude to the regime of a country, indeed they will present their assessment in that light. What do you mean by saying compared to the last year? The regime hasn’t changed in Armenia over the course of the past year, has it? So, I don’t think there’re any changes compared to the previous year.
– Do you think the incumbent regime is unable to yield positive or negative changes? For example, an RPA MP, Edward Sharmazanov, stated that due to Serzh Sargsyan the country has become more tolerant this year.
– What does the opposition do? Nothing is going on in this country. And if the Armenian opposition doesn’t function, they will not only become more tolerant, but also democratic. Because in that scenario, they will have a conflict for the high post; they will have conflicts with each other, and this will be a real expression of democracy. It would be possible to speak about tolerance if the developments of March 1 hadn’t caused casualties. If the leader of the opposition is asking for a dialogue and the government says yes, does this indicate that there political tolerance? If there was an actual opposition in Armenia, they wouldn’t have the right to speak of tolerance. This is a mockery on part of the government addressed to the society. They tease the people and they gained the right to do so.
– How come?
– Because the society is tolerant and it tolerates the regime. And the latter mocks the society by taking advantage of them.
– But the society has numerously proved its intolerance. Perhaps the issue stands with the leaders.
– I don’t know who circulated those rumors, but those are fake reasons. I think that this opinion is circulated by special services, and not all societies can accept it. That is for a society endowed with coward, weak, surrendering citizens who attempt to find excuses to justify their cowardice. Leaders are born from among the protesting citizens on the street. They don’t arrive by plane and don’t necessarily have PhD in Political Science. I recall 1988. Of course, the Karabakh committee was doing its best to ensure that new leaders are not born. But we had leaders despite this ban. In the Liberty Square people would gather in a group of ten, and one of them would lead the rest. Everybody would listen to him and ask questions. And the people would suggest that person to express his views from the podium. Leaders are born spontaneously. Whenever there is the objective of changing the leadership, the new leader must possess new qualities – bravery, courage, self-sacrifice, self-determination… Unfortunately, the society is less inclined to recognize brave and courageous people. It mostly seeks individuals who would serve it. But there can be no change of government with such people. And this is beneficial for everybody because they don’t want to see any radical changes. They want to go to rallies, hear a thing or two, then go home and ask themselves what to do next.
– What should the people do when the leaders from the podium tell them to go home?
– The people should stand up, get on the podium and exclaim that they won’t go home, and thus galvanize the others to stay with them. And the ones who send them home must come to the square and see that the people are still there. The leaders of the 1988 movement Igor Muradyan, Vache Sarukhanyan were all changed during that period. They reached the point when they weren’t able to suffice the society anymore. Therefore, they should’ve either become more radical or let go. So we witnessed the last scenario. The society should find leaders by itself.
– In 2007 the society once again found Levon Ter-Petrosyan as their leader.
– That’s because they didn’t have a better option. That is the reason why they truly gave their votes to him. That is the reason why I think the criteria which the society relies on while choosing leaders can’t bring any tangible results under the current circumstances regardless of whether it’s Ter-Petrosyan or others. In June 1988, everybody was screaming “Karabakh belongs to us!” But nobody would undertake a concrete step. The USSR Supreme Council Session was due on June 15. Five friends and I decided to go on a hunger strike, demanding the inclusion of this matter on the agenda of the Session. People from the Karabakh Committee would come and join our protest. On the first night of the hunger strike on June 3, Khachik Stambuktsyan, Armen Mazmanyan, and many others would tell me that I’m provoking them by my hunger strike. They would tell me that Russian tanks would roll to the square to subdue us. People from KGB would show up and threaten that they would send me to where I came from if I don’t stop the protest. After my mother found out about the threats of KGB, she came to me and begged to stop the protest. She said that she would poison herself if I hadn’t stopped it. And I told her that if I didn’t go to hunger strike, I would’ve burnt myself. And my mother told the KGB agents that I would really do so. But I didn’t obey their orders and continued voiced my demands. So we reached the point when this matter entered the main agenda of the Supreme Council and received a positive feedback. The society thought that it was done due to the efforts of the Karabakh Committee but it’s not quite true. Leadership is not only rhetoric, but today’s leaders are perceived as people with remarkable oratory skills. It is an ambition and that’s ok, but there are situations when only this is not enough for change. Being a scientist is not a criterion. Raffi Hovhannisian does not correspond to the standards of a revolution leader. A revolutionary person can’t say that he has to go home because it’s his child’s birthday. Today, everybody says that there is no leader. Let them choose somebody from among themselves. The people picked their leader in 2007 with the same logic, and that was Levon. The government stated that Levon would always be able to find a common ground with the elite. What do you expect from that kind of people? Of course, on March 1, Ter-Petrosyan stated that the people don’t belong to him and that his supporters didn’t take on any aggressive or active initiatives. For example, Karen Demirchyan and Stepan Demirchyan appealed the results of elections after the electoral race and didn’t go any further. But if Ter-Petrosyan speaks about revolution and goes home in the middle of the process, then I can claim that the movement demonstrated cowardice either because of the leader or by improper management of the people.
– Perhaps the problem is with the adopted tactics. For example, Ter-Petrosyan conducted a political analysis and drew the conclusion that by collaborating with a member of the ruling coalition – Prosperous Armenia – the movement may succeed with revolution.
– Let’s assume they start to cooperate and instead of ten seats in parliament the ANC gains twenty with the help of PA. Then what? I’m speaking about a revolution. The ANC doesn’t have any connection with the revolutionary processes of Armenia. The ANC was challenging the RPA to collaborate but it didn’t work out. Now they are attempting to do the same with the other coalition party. There is nothing new in this working style. I just don’t understand why they are making so much noise around this request. Why wasn’t there such a sensation with the same request addressed to the RPA? It’s not improbable that someday a similar request might be addressed to Artur Baghdasaryan. Will the people again start to talk about what a great tactical step has taken?
– So do you find this an incorrect tactic for organizing a revolution?
– But the ANC got nothing to do with the revolution because Levon once again reiterated that there can be no revolution here even in hundred years. And he will do his best to exclude any chance of revolution in the country. He and Serzh Sargsyan are doing their best to make sure that there is no revolution in this country for hundred years. But they are wrong, and they will fail as a result of our revolution.
– What about Robert Kocharyan?
– He’s still not in the game and something tells me that he will contribute to the revolution unwillingly. Kocharyan is not going to go to the square to hold a rally. If he decides to join politics, he will do it in the previous manner.
– Back then he was brought to power. Who is going to do it now?
– Putin, but I hope it doesn’t work out. A revolution is a deadly strike for all three presidents. And I’m saying that in 2013 I will hold a revolution in Armenia. The society should decide whether they want a revolutionary leader or meaningless intelligence. If they are not able to pick a different leader let them stay in such a misery. As our society is coward this cowardice should be overcome be pressure. We had this condition on March 1. The segment of the society, which is ready for actual changes, clearly realize that Ter-Petrosyan’s opposition is not revolutionary. All those boys, who were fighting on March 1 with rocks and sticks, bottles they are not lost. They merely got disappointed of the leader and are waiting in their homes to get back on feet. The 4-year activities of Ter-Petrosyan have proven that he doesn’t wish for revolution and he even uttered that with his lips. And the ones, who keep believing in him, merely see what they wish for in the reality. If someone, who really is able to organize a revolution comes on the podium. And in order not to look funky in their eyes they throw accusations to the brake leaders. Now it’s a very good time for them. Part of them is working on the government and the other part on the opposition. They are political figures and therefore need to be seen and noticed somehow. It is their “craft.” The government is eliminating the dignity of their own people and the opposition also has a fault in it. It is a very big hit to the society. The people have come to the square to get rid of the coalition parties. It doesn’t matter whether they are good or bad. You have declared them your enemy. What has changed during these 4 years that now you offer them cooperation? Did they hold a referendum and people gave their consent to grant amnesty to the criminals of March 1? For example, I am sure that this was done with the efforts of the Russian secret services. Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan didn’t have anything to do with it. Let Ter-Petrosyan not play with the dignity of the society. Ter-Petrosyan has got nothing else to tell the people, no new messages are left. I blame the current opposition as much as I blame the government and consider them the enemy of mine and these people. The enemy of my society is my society.
– What can you say about the law on secret files? Not only the government but also a great number of ANC members are against this.
– I really would wish that the Heritage had done this with no covert interest and I really hope that they don’t give up this initiative. I also would wish that the secret files of the March 1 cases were revealed. The ANC should have been the first to endorse this bill and do its best to reveal what had happened on March 1. It’s clear why the ones in government don’t wish that but why would the opposition oppose it? Well, what can I say? I am sure when there is revolution in Armenia and the archives will be opened. If they have shame they will have to leave. The person, who opposes this bill right now, should just leave this country because of the revolution.
– For example, a member of the ANC, former minister of the National Security Davit Shahnazaryan stated that if three people get introduced to these archives they will never insist on declassifying these archives.
– Why? Does he know the contents of these archives? Perhaps back in the day he went and got acquainted to these archives. These archives are needed to eliminate the team of Robert Kocharyan.
– Why is the ANC against that?
– There is certain ignorance or they don’t want their dossiers opened. The ones, who are not ignorant, are interested in the opening of these files. If Shahnazaryan thinks that it’s possible to view the archives then he had probably seen those during the years of his tenure. If this approach was acceptable for him he would have never said that. He is probably trying to use many people right now. That’s normal and a person should be fool not to use the dossiers against other people. It means that the person is either an agent and doesn’t wish to have any public resonance. I don’t see any other explanation. When the current head of the National Security Service Gorik Hakobyan speaks about that, it’s understandable. It’s unclear though why Shahnazaryan would oppose that while they claim they want to destroy the current regime. He was the first agent of Armenia and he knows well that all the law-enforcing structures are working to reproduce the current government and strengthen the current regime. If the ANC says that they want to destroy the regime and get rid of the government but in the meantime they oppose the bill it means they support the reproduction of the government. This is exactly what Shahnazaryan is doing by trying to enforce the reproduction of the government.