During the speech of president Serzh Sargsyan at the RPA’s general meeting it was clear already that there would be strong discussions over the numbers and information spoken by him. However, it was not expected that the debate would last so long.
Following the speech of president Sargsyan, former deputy minister Hrant Bagratyan wrote an open letter criticizing almost all aspects in the president’s speech. Hrant Bagratyan literally accused the authorities in disorientation of the people. Of course it would be a matter of honor to respond to Bagratyan’s statement because to leave this letter without an answer would mean to agree with it. Despite Bagratyan’s quick reaction, it took several days from the government to respond. It is understandable because it would be very difficult to find arguments against the critics concerning several points in the speech. The answer came from the finance deputy minister V. Aramyan. In an article entitled “Conscious manipulation of figures” Aramyan answered all statements made by Bagratyan, and in some cases the arguments contained insulting statements (by drawing parallels between the former prime-deputy minister and a lazy student). In consideration of the fact that Bagratyan wrote the letter alone and in one day (due to which there were grammatical mistakes in the text), and also the fact that his letter was answered by an important state institution, for the public it is already a positive opinion about the former prime-deputy minister.
The answer came so and now it is the turn of Bagratyan to respond. It was already very difficult for Bagratyan to answer. It was difficult for him not to find answers (those who know him will agree with this) but to decide whether it is worth answering or no. Bagratyan understands that if he answers the statements, he will be forced to enter in a process of continues debate and accusations and will have to continue the critics as long as the responses from the government may continue. The most difficult thing is that Bagratyan would have to reduce the level of the debate because when he initiated the debate he addressed his letter to the president and supposedly he had to debate at least with the prime-deputy minister. However, now he has to debate with the finance deputy minister. Bagratyan eventually decided to answer but he entitled his letter as “Open letter to the president – 2”. “Let me say that I accept this as your response. I don’t know whether this person responded in your or his own name. As he is speaking of all figures and in the name of all state institutions, I may suppose that he was instructed to answer. Accordingly, I am accepting it as your response. Anyway, I have nothing to do with him. In a normal country and in normal conditions I would expect to receive an answer from you in a quiet manner and without insulting me,” writes Hrant Bagratyan.
This means that Bagratyan understands that his debate is not with the deputy minister but with the president. The former prime-deputy minister also discussed the title of the response (“Conscious manipulation with figures”).
The prime-deputy minister again referred to separate points in his previous letter. The deputy minister wrote in his response that he did not understand the definition of Bagratyan saying that “the budget is the salary of the state”. In answer to this statement Bagratyan writes, “If you don’t understand the meaning of my definition that the “budget is the salary of the state”, if it is not understandable for you, it means that is not understandable. What can I do? It is impossible to explain simpler?” Bagratyan also wrote about how one could estimate whether the budget had been fulfilled or no. “The ministry of finance recently reported that the budget 2011 had been fulfilled at 848 billion drams. Now, as the head of the state you must estimate whether it is true or no. First, the state budget had been approved at 852 billion. Which means that it was failed to be implemented by 0,5%. Second, according to your official statistics the economic growth was 5,9% instead of 4,2%. This means that the budget was relatively failed to be implemented by 1,7%. Third, the inflation was 7,7% instead of 4+/-1.5%. The budget was relatively failed to be implemented by more 2,2%. In order to say that the budget 2011 was fulfilled it hat to be at least the following: 852 + 14.4 (852×0.017) + 18.7 (852×0.022) = 885.1 drams. Any amount less than this one means partial failure of fulfillment and stagnation of the economic situation. This means that your budget 2011 was fulfilled by 95.8% (848£885×100%),” writes Bagratyan. He also mentioned that he did such estimations and analysis for different important audiences and “people thank him for that but not call him a magician.” “I will not answer anything about the word “magician”. For example, I could say that the magician is your … neighbor. But I will not say it,” writes Bagratyan.
The deputy-minister also disagreed with the statement of the former PM saying that the tax/GDP relation in Armenia is mainly defined by reduction of the GDP, and asked the following question: “Mr. Bagratyan, do you really believe that in other equal conditions it is possible to improve the tax/GDP relation by providing less growth than the real announced growth of the GDP?”
“The observation concerning the taxes/GDP relation makes no sense. By the way, here they confess that taxes can be increased when the economy slumps. Of course it is possible because in the tax system mostly the indirect taxes prevail. Those may not have direct connection with production capacities. Besides that, they take as much tax prepayments they want from anyone. They neither give any money from the VAT back to anyone. And so on,” writes Bagratyan.
As the letter of Bagratyan is very large, we will not publish the entire text. It is worth mentioning that the former prime-minister wrote his letter as he usually does – honestly and with humor. It is worth reading the entire text, which is published in a number of electronic sources.
We cannot publish the last part of the letter. “This is all for now. Don’t worry; we will come and correct the situation. Don’t dismiss the deputy minister of finance either. Instead of that you’d be better to encourage him. If you would like to answer, it would be good. But let’s do it on TV. I will agree to debate with the prime-minister and/or the president of the Central Bank. You can refuse the idea of coming. Let’s do it in two weeks. We are intellectual guest workers; we will make a little bit money to bring home to take care of our families and pay the judges too. Your situation is different. You have no complexes with mixing your positions and business occupation to make money,” writes Bagratyan.
It is difficult to say what the continuation of this process may be. In the last publication (when the answer of V. Aramyan was published) we wrote that we hoped a TV debate would be initiated. However, as the time goes we understand that it is almost impossible. The president or prime-minister will never agree to debate with Bagratyan on the air; neither Bagratyan will agree to debate with a deputy minister. Obviously this process of writing letters will continue.