Former NA personnel head (1995-1998) Ashot Antinyan, who has been living in Moscow during the recent years, in his article published in our newspaper in December 2007 forecasted the future political developments in Armenia and did not exclude that there might be not only political clashes resulting in blood, but also the possibility of state of emergency in the country. According to him, this time the situation will be frozen till April 9, but he believes there will be drastic changes later.
– Was the possibility of such conflicts and clashes so evident? Why were you sure that there would be such political developments?
– In the given case it was a simple calculation, which was not desirable to me at all. The opposition leaders were on the scene not to win, but not to lose by all means. It may seem strange, but I mean Levon Ter-Petrosyan and Kocharyan. It was a struggle between them for not losing, which has been numerously proven by the fact that Kocharyan’s stance is very aggressive. During that time Serzh Sargsyan was busy with his campaign and followed the rules of a classic campaign, and definitely he understood that even though the conflict between the competing parties would create problems for him, but first of all would be fatal for those two conflicting parties. Was he able to prevent the conflict? Yes, but only in the tandem with Levon Ter-Petrosyan, otherwise keeping in the tandem with Kocharyan would mean manoeuvring only on the one side of the line. It is a pity that there were no agreements and arrangements because till the end Serzh Sargsyan was loyal to one of the sides, and fully undesirable for the other side. In fact, neither of the two parties was interested in the level of support on the part of the society to Serzh Sargsyan. The best example to prove this viewpoint is that one of them thought that the society loved Serzh Sargsyan too much, and the other thought that serzh Sargsyan would not get even two votes during the election. Thus, the processes were driven to a situation where happened what was inescapable because as I said in my article, “Ter-Petrosyan entered the political field in a situation, where, despite the wishes of the parties, the competition meant harsh struggle for survival, where they did not want to lose in any case. By the way, the situation was the same for the both parties. I think that it is a tragedy for the ordinary people first of all because as a rule those conflicts where compromises are excluded bring to bloody conflicts”. If you remember I also said that Kocharyan would not take the prime-minister’s position despite the fact that many people believed that he would.
– In fact one can see everything better in Armenia from Moscow than from here.
– I have partly answered to the question why it could not happen. As a supplementary fact, I can repeat what I have said in the past: “As for the scenario when the roles would be changed as in Russia in case of Serzh Sargsyan’s victory, it does not seem to be real. The problem is that even if we don’t count with Putin’s great reputation, he has majority of support in the Russian Duma, which is a real support. As for Armenia, the parliament is accountable to the incumbent prime-minister. Please tell me at least one reason, according to which the elected president, who has majority in the parliament and is a strong person, may agree to be the second actor in the country. As for the scenario, according to which Kocharyan may agree to be the second actor in the position of the prime-minister, it is less possible than the first one. Do you think that Serzh Sargsyan does not know about the fact that Kocharyan does not have an electorate? If no, Kocharyan will not get the PM’s position”.
– According to your opinion, what solutions there may be? What is the key driving out of this situation?
– It is worth mentioning that this critical situation is so bad, that finding solutions should not be only the problem of the intelligentsia and politicians, but also every single person who cares about the future of this country. Certainly there are solutions, but I think that we cannot expect systematic and effective developments till April 9. The first step is to freeze the situation till that time in this phase. Of course we may think of several issues as well. For example, whether civic complaints and cynicism are always extreme, and whether the demonstrators and rally participants are always bums, hoboes or drug addicts. If yes, isn’t the leader of the country responsible for such a big number of drug addicts and bums in the country? Or, does terror of the society help to develop an environment of tolerance and happiness in the country? Can the terrorized society resist the foreign challenges? We should think about this too and whether according to the rules of geometry it is possible to destruct a pyramid by removing a stone from the top of the pyramid, even if it is the biggest stone. Or, whether hitting a clove with the hand is the hand’s problem or the clove’s problem. It is also interesting whether we have found mongolo-tatarian origin in our generation before or after the adoption of the constitutional provision on dual citizenship. We can ask more such questions, but I think these questions are enough to prove the point. My opinion is that there haven’t been any steps so far to overcome the environment of intolerance in the country, and as I said hardly there may be any till April 9.
– The authorities have made a quadrilateral coalition and introduced that fact as a step to help the situation. However, it is evident that it hasn’t helped at all.
– We should understand that the quadrilateral coalition is not able to help the tension because it is a governmental coalition; there should be a civic coalition. The creation of this coalition was first of all targeted at creating a product for foreign use, and maybe it was a good step. As for the inner field, we should be pragmatic and confess that after that coalition agreement the oppositionists have not become pro-governmental at all. Furthermore, the opposition group which is called radical is still active and they should count with it. Besides that people should understand that this group of radical oppositionists was not created by Levon Ter-Petrosyan, he just succeeded in mobilizing those citizens as any other oppositionists could do if tried better. It is another issue who what does to direct the power of those groups at certain goals. We should also understand that the best way to take political oppositionists out to streets is depriving them from their right to speak. The authorities should understand that even the sharpest critics is better heard on TV than during rallies because the rally speeches are made for their supporters only, and in case of speeches made during rallies they can say whatever they want, however when making speeches on TV they have to be more responsible because besides their supporters other people may watch those speeches and disagree with them and sometimes they may have to give an answer even in courts. Why can’t the government bring counter-facts and enter into a dialogue with them and present their approaches in a civilized manner and convince the society that they are right? If they can’t, it is their problem and it means that their team is weak. In fact, what real claims may the opposition bring against the authorities? I think that the only topic they can rely on concerns providing an opportunity for exercising political freedoms and express themselves. The radical opposition cannot complain about pressing down their votes and not being heard in the public any more since the Heritage party has voluntarily agreed to take the role to represent that opposition in the parliament and deprived it from the opportunity to submit a claim for organizing extraordinary parliamentary elections. It could be one of the compromise solutions, of course if not the best option. Again and again the parties have driven the process to a deadlock and first of all it is the duty of the authorities to show the way out of it because the strong side has more to compromise than the others. It is also the obligation and duty of the intelligentsia and political scientists to point out the rights of the mentioned group of citizens because the intelligentsia must protect the part of the society which is in a bad situation even if they don’t agree with them.
– Do you think that Serzh Sargsyan’s victory in the election does not mean reproduction of the authorities?
– I am sure it is not because Serzh Sargsyan is a separate politician and will implement totally different policy. I believe a lot of things will change in Armenia, which will be seen in the nearest future. I can only say that there will be changes not due to reproduction of the government, but change of the government. Yes, I can still repeat the idea in my last article that Serzh Sargsyan’s victory is not Kocharyan’s victory but it guarantees his personal immunity and in case of his loss it would be a fiasco for Kocharyan. If you remember I also said that Sargsyan could even be very passive and not involve in the processes and Kocharyan would do everything instead of him and in some cases without the wish of Sargsyan. In a word, it is like a paradoxical situation: the bigger the counterbalance against Serzh Sargsyan is, the bigger influence Kocharyan has. In a word, April 9 will be a specific separation even if people want the processes develop like in the recent times so that they can justify any clampdown by excluding any hopes of reformations; it is the same, very soon the objective reality will put everything in its place.