Different candidates are running for presidency and they have different merits and opportunities, however citizens are interested mainly in two candidates.
The first candidate is the prime minister, who differs not with the fact that he has administrative strong tools, but the fact that he is supported by the NA majority and is the only candidate who can fulfill his promises by using his rights provided by the Constitution. The other candidates will have many difficulties to fulfill their promises if they are not supported by the NA majority. Certainly it is a great superiority in favor of the prime minister due to the past parliamentary elections.
The other candidate differs with the fact that he has been president for about seven years and had such unlimited liabilities which the newly elected president will not have. When this candidate gives promises, voters psychologically remember his tenure period and compare with the current situation. When people hear such promises concerning fighting corruption and illegality they ask each other whether this president has done that when he was almost like a king. Those people who have good memory feel insulted when they listen to Ter-Petrosyan saying that there can’t be any politicians or citizens who are honest and don’t not want to join and support him. It turns out that all honest people must be blind and deaf; they must lose their memories and not see the contradictions between Ter-Petrosyan’s words. And if they can see and hear, it means they are not honest. They are not honest since they can remember the elections in 1996. They are speaking about balance of power branches but they haven’t even tried to sacrifice some of their power tools in favor of providing balance of powers. What did prevent them from doing it during seven years? The war? We can agree with that. The ceasefire agreement was executed in May 1994 and he ruled as president with almost unlimited powers during the consecutive three years. Why didn’t he do that at that time and he wants to do it now? Are there any guarantees that after becoming president and dissolving the parliament (of course if he can) he will wish to do so.
We are not honest because we are asking them whether they have implemented an effective recruitment policy or if they thought that Bagratyan was a good PM and managed effectively why they replaced him… If…
We are not honest since we are asking them if they supported Demirchyan why didn’t they help him to protect his votes and why the ANM supported his opponent and later no one complained of the violations. He behaved in the same manner after the presidential election of 2003 too. We are not honest since we can remember the slashing critics address to NDU by Ter-Petrosyan’s Media. When he accuses the authorities in failing to discover the terror of October 27 we are not honest since we say that we haven’t heard anything from him besides his announcement to keep with Kocharyan after the terror of October 27.
It is up to the voters to say why he has decided to use the factor of the terror of October 27 for pre-election purposes, but as far as I understand it is done only for the purpose of attracting votes. We wouldn’t speak about Ter-Petrosyan’s promises concerning settling the conflict of Karabakh in a short period, developing relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan if the corresponding provisions in the Constitution concerning national security and foreign policy gave such broad powers to the president. It is worth discussing the Karabaklh conflict too as there are many contradictions between his words and works.
If Karabakh had to become stronger as a separate state and become a party to the process of negotiations, why did you convince the president of Karabakh, who was a good president according to the estimations of your team, to come to Armenia and why did you appoint him PM, thus undermining the factor of sovereignty on the part of Karabakh?
If before your resignation you were sure that the phasic version of the conflict settlement was good for us why didn’t you use the powers provided by the Constitution to replace the PM and defense minister (by the way, later Vazgen Sargsyan said that he would obey the president’s order). If you believed you were right and if you were sure that you could help your people why weren’t you decisive? Why are you decisive now? Are there any guaranties that you will not lose your decisiveness after becoming president?
If you are speaking of honesty, you must tell people what you are going to compromise to Azerbaijan and Turkey so that they agree to develop relations with you and open the railways. This question can be addressed by Ter-Petrosyan’s supporters too. First of all “Republic” party must ask this question, which was founded for the purpose of finishing the work started by Vazgen Sargsyan. Everyone knows that there has been conflict between Vazgen Sargsyan and Levon Ter-Petrosyan in terms of Karabakh conflict, which resulted in Ter-Petrosyan’s resignation. The “Republic” should honestly answer to the question whether he advocates Vazgen Sargsyan’s viewpoint or refuses it. If they don’t refuse that viewpoint, what are they doing with Levon Ter-Petrosyan? This question must be asked to PPA, which signed under a statement with other parliamentarians in 2001, which defines our policy standing on the main principles of Karabakh conflict: “Armenia and Karabakh either shall join or its independence shall be recognized internationally, the authorities of Karabakh shall take part in the final version of the conflict settlement document, a common border with the necessary length should be provided between Armenia and Karabakh to provide security of Karabakh by mapping peace border with Azerbaijan. During the negotiations no territorial part of Armenia can be subject to negotiating, also there can’t be any communication connection on the account of Armenia’s territorial integrity or sovereignty”.
These principles have been unacceptable by Azerbaijan so far, thus Levon Ter-Petrosyan and his supporters must honestly tell people which the price of developing relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan will be, which is supposed to be out of these principles.