Whenever our pro-authoritarian television networks get an assignment, they put in a lot of effort to do their best but in the end ruin everything. It is sort of like a child that gets straight As just to please his parents and then suddenly starts studying poorly. Of course, the television networks know what to do; they don’t leave anything out, but despite the effort put in there are still some flaws. This is how our pro-authoritarian television networks propagandize this or that event as if the viewer is not able to differentiate between what he or she has heard or recalls.
We see some girl on television… (um, I almost want to quit this and write poems). So, we have some girl on television who I think has problems breathing when talking about the president of the country and you get the impression that the president has barely made his way to Tsakhkdzor after escaping some madness just to cut the red tape for the rope-way. You must leave a big and good impression and that is exactly what the host does. When she is told to leave the viewer shocked, the same girl talks about the force applied against the Azeri opposition, thousands of people getting arrested and similar things. But when it comes time to talk about the negative comments made by the OSCE regarding the Azeri parliamentary elections, the host starts breathing calmly and that’s when everything gets mixed up.
Now they are propagandizing the constitutional amendments. The speakers of the pro-authoritarian television networks complete this assignment the same way-reciting the notes that they have prepared for some distant time and space. With the thought of having accomplished something extraordinary, they claim that the proposed constitutional amendments have set limits on the president’s powers as if they had dreamed of that their whole life.
On the other hand, I have not seen any television show host talk about the president’s powers before the propaganda for the constitutional amendments. Now I the viewer start to think and ask myself a question: were the powers that the president used to have really that bad? If I were to have seen some reports about, for example, the event that took place at the Paplavok café, if I had taken part in the discussions seen on television where the guests would not debate about the powers of the president, but at least his bodyguards, perhaps then I would understand the concept of praising the limited powers of the president.
But what is the matter? I, the viewer, sit at home watching television and find out that our country is the most organized in the region, that our economy is rising like it never has before and that our city is developing at large tendencies-so large that they can be considered as tendencies of the Stalin era and New York. Now I ask the television network: why are you talking to me about the limits set on the president’s powers? After all, weren’t you the ones who used to say that everything being accomplished in the country is thanks to the president’s supervision, sponsorship and participation? Could the scissors that cut the red tape for thousands of business openings suddenly cut his powers?
We don’t owe our gratitude to the Armenian National Movement for turning our country into the most organized country in the region, right? Didn’t that happen during Robert Kocharyan’s presidency? Imagine Robert Kocharyan having limits set on his powers as proposed in the constitutional amendments and trying to rule the country with those powers. It wouldn’t work, right? In that case, how were we going to have a rise in economy?
They make the same statements when they claim that the judicial branch of government will be independent. Who said that that branch of government has been anything but independent until now? I don’t recall a time when our television show hosts discussed the independence of the judicial branch during the many court sessions seen on television. I have not heard them say that the constitution is not a good one; that we should be patient, pass a new constitution, make the courts independent and everything will be fine.
Don’t think that I am comparing the good and bad of the powers foreseen in the constitutional amendments, more or less, or that I am against making the judicial branch independent-absolutely not. I am not discussing the constitutional because I think that it is either too late or too early to be doing that. In both cases, the television networks are the one to blame for showing that same host with the heavy breathing and those topics being talked about.
This is how questions come up when you hear the president say the famous words “I can say why I vote “yes” or why I vote “no” in a tone similar to “I am Alpha and Omega”. When we translate this, we get the following: society does not demand amending the constitution and there is no demand due to the fact that our television show hosts keep breathing heavily because society is simply dumb to realize that.