And so all the parties that overcame the required minimum threshold on May 6 will get seats in the parliament despite their “criticizing” opinions about the conduct of elections. They will go to parliament not to be the government “any break” day and night. The ANC, ARF and Heritage with different “tones” have recorded that the elections have been falsified by the government. They recorded that the elections were falsified in an unprecedented manner. Having done so, in the meantime they refuse to put down their “legitimate” mandates in the “legitimate parliament.” Moreover, all these parties present their decisions by a bog sacrifice on their part to accept their mandates. They act like that to the society as according to them they are going to the parliament to “fight for the society.” It means they are going to serve the people. Having said that, it doesn’t mean that the best thing is to boycott the vote results. However, if these parties think that the vote results were falsified and that they are planning to fight against the government then by refusing parliamentary mandates their struggle would become more substantial. They would have better opportunities to restrain and subdue the government in the absence of their “hot” speeches from the NA forum. The government has falsified the elections in such a systemized and flawless way that deserved the high evaluation of the international community. Now the government needs more attributes evidencing the conduct of free and fair elections. The presence of 6 political parties in the parliament is one of those attributes. And if these parties also strictly criticize the government and it is broadcast on “free” TV stations, the government becomes more democratic and tolerant. With these qualities the government will step into the presidential elections in a few months from now. It means that by going to the NA, the opposition forces aren’t as much serving the people as forging the “democratic image” of the government. In this sense, the parliamentary forces are becoming not as much political but governmental elements. So has been and still is the PAP regardless of how hard the ANC would try to separate it from the government. After the elections the ambiguous behavior of the PAP shows that it is trying to get more from the current government shares. Speaking of the Legal State in this context is meaningless because it will do and act the way the ruling party wants it to do. In these conditions the parliamentary opposition will conduct a function similar to the Ombudsman of Armenia, the state committee on protection of competitive economy, the Public Chamber… These and many other institutes make the “external look” of the Armenian government and the guarantee of the high evaluation of international monitors. Under these circumstances, the international community would come to consciousness if the opposition parties didn’t accept the vote results and their mandates and claimed that in Armenia a monopoly of power has been established according to “European standards.” In the opposite case, the opposition parties that appeared in the party will conduct the duty of not a governmental client but a servant – either jointly or separately by becoming a real “united Armenia.”
