– The “Rule of Law” is not a part of the coalition any more and wants to join the opposition. As for the opposition, they say that they are ready to forgive anyone that apologizes. What do you have to say about this?
– First of all, I must say that the opposition doesn’t belong to anyone and is not a private sector. One of the main reasons I think like this is the fact that the opposition must be able to change and become the ruling power, this is a classic example. Anyway, I think both the content of the opposition and the government can be changed. Besides that, the status of the opposition is not defined by the political powers being represented there, but by people. This is not a closed club where new people are accepted only on the basis of agreement. The only one who can decide who is opposition is the society. And if people think that the Rule of Law is really oppositional, this will be decisive. The recent political actions were like a public execution and people were telling each other details. In fact this was a payback given by the executive power to the legislative power, or a part of it. We had this scenario back in 1997, when the Republic party was a majority in the parliament and had control over the government. They boycotted and the executive power started acting against the legislative, which had brought them up. This is just like in some families, when the parents bring up their children, and later the children treat their parents badly. It is very important for me to follow-up and analyze the political developments of 1998, 1999 and 2006 because it is worth understanding the current political environment in general. This is one more fact proving that our country is not a legal and democratic state, even more; the power branches are not independent in our country. The judicial power fully depends on the executive power, and if there are some small conflicts, they are solved quietly. In our country both the legislative and the judicial powers are formed by the executive power.
– Does the main participant of the coalition, Robert Kocharyan, have any role to play here?
– He is the one standing on top of the executive pyramid. These kinds of systems can be explained theoretically: this is called a totalitarian system, an illegal and non-democratic state. So we don’t have any reasons to be happy or sad, because what happened to the Rule of Law shows that the political field is full of fraud and violations.
– You said that the oppositional powers are not the ones to decide who is oppositional or not. What about the old oppositional parties that have criticized Arthur Baghdasaryan before? Do they think it is good of the Rule of Law to leave promptly and say that they want to join the opposition?
– Unfortunately there are no terms like marital loyalty in politics. I don’t want to draw examples because you know that things may change. Don’t forget that those who were blaming Christians became Christian and were better than the other ones. I don’t see any problems here. Besides that these examples show that the relations among opposition members are not democratic either. Political powers may change their approach and join another political group, this happens.
– Don’t you think people should remind A. Baghdasaryan who he used to be?
– People have already started asking such questions. But since A. Baghdasaryan is a clever person, I think he will find good answers. We should place ourselves higher than the private life and status. I mean politics only. Even more, we should do our best to support these developments to be effective for our political field. When Jelzin became the head of democratic Russia, no one tried to remind him that he used to be the first secretary of Moscow political board of the party. Now Gagik Harutyunyan is the head of the Constitutional Court and Kocharyan is the president of Armenia, but no one reminds them who they were and what parties they have represented. Politics is actual and based on the current situation. Of course the recent developments play a big role, but it is not decisive. We should understand that political powers may change their approach. This is very important and they should do this transparently, but not behind the curtains. People are speaking about the fact that the businessmen are leaving the Rule of Law first. This is disrespect to people. Even if they have violated the elections, anyway they have gotten votes and represent the interests of some regions and the party. And now they are leaving the party without any good explanations. This is disrespect to citizens and they should know the why this happened.
– Some pro-government sources information say that this is a preparation for the upcoming 2007 parliamentary elections and the Rule of Law will be the main, active oppositional power during the elections. Do you think this is right?
– I don’t think so. I think these processes are real. Besides that, the current authorities proved that they are very strict in 1997 after coming to Armenia from Karabagh. All that is happening now was technologically used both in Karabagh and in Armenia in 1998. These recent developments are a payback to the parliament and the executive power wants to show that the parliament doesn’t play a key role in our politics. I mean they wanted to show that the parliament acted within framework of the executive power political programs, and those who took a step out of this framework are strictly punished. This showed us that our political field is in a very poor situation. I mean all the powers, both the former and the current governmental parties. Currently, we can say for sure that two newly established parties are campaigning, but not transparently. The “Union for Armenia” is getting bigger, but doesn’t make anything clear. We don’t understand what they are actually doing. And now, we suddenly learn that they have opened 14 chapters in Vanadzor city. I can say the same about the “Developing Armenia” party. They don’t debate with any political powers, don’t attend discussions and forums; they only show that they have a very good financial status. The technologies which will be applied during the coming elections are clear.
– Once, you said that the Rule of Law was collapsed by the same system that they had established long ago. Can we say that these new parties that were founded in the same way will collapse like the Rule of Law?
– As long as the current regime has the adequate resources, any of these parties that cross their limits will get the same payback. I am sure about this, because this is the main method of self-protection of the authorities. For instance, it would be very good if the ministers of the Rule of Law were against the governmental decisions, which would result in resignation. The executive branch of government must work together. As for not allowing any contradicting ideas to be spoken in the parliament, we can understand this. In fact, Arthur Baghdasaryan’s opinion didn’t differ from the opinion of the authorities that much.