According to the first one everything is fine, guys. It should have been like this because we are living an objective period of our history. Our independence is only 15 years old, isn’t it? We don’t get surprised about the virtues dominant in the 18th century in Europe. So imagine that with our development rates we still live in the 18th century. Therefore, we must have a historical patience and strength. Everything has its time. Corruption? Where doesn’t it exist? Shady market? It also exists in all countries. According to the “objectivists” the oppositionists are merely beliers, who stubbornly don’t wish to notice and admit the reforms and the dual-digit economic growth. The “last accord” of the “objectivists” is the allegation that Armenia is the most organized country in Trans-Caucasus. It’s natural that the circle of the “objectivists” includes government representatives and the ones, who are loyalists of the government. Those are people, who are OK with the current status quo. The “subjectivists” differ in their historical intolerance and think that we could have been in a better shape. They think that if the government used the actual resources of the country for the development and not for the wealth of their own pockets, the nation and the country would be in more improved conditions than what we have currently. Despite the young democracy we could have reached better results. We have to deal with the fact that the political elite of Armenia is refusing to show goodwill about the solution of key issues of the civil society and implementation of vital programs for the country. In the opinion of the “subjectivists” the country was occupied in terms of using the resources and opportunities of the country are being used on behalf of the interests of the clans. And thus an oligarchic state is created. Yes, the economy grows but it doesn’t develop because no qualitative reform was made in there. Moreover, quite dangerous factors of market monopolization are being developed, the principle of fair competition is being infringed and the property rights are not followed. Such “development” will bring us to a dead-lock and after some time the economic growth may cease. Thus, the ones, who believe that that everything is done on behalf of country’s development, are mistaken. There are many market economies in the world, where no development takes place. Decades pass away but nothing changes in there. The version that Armenia may appear in such state is not excluded. According to several economists Armenia is being absorbed in a so called institutional trap, the way out of which is extremely difficult. Despite the perfunctory difference between the two viewpoints there are also many similarities between them. If what the “subjectivists” are saying is right then all that is not reflected in the society, which gives new winning cards to the “objectivists.” This means that the current status quo satisfies not only the incumbent government but also the majority of the society (here we may remember the simple saying that every nation deserves the government and the government deserves the nation). Under these circumstances the criticism of the opposition resembles a boring mumble of the former government, which wants nothing but come back to power. It’s called a unique solidarity of contradictions.
