0 8000 12 11

Interview with Arthur Sakunts, Chairman of Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor office

Mr. Sakunts, the new parliament is thought to be a continuation of the old parliament.    Will the new generation of Armenia form a new reality and close this chapter of the modern history of Armenia?

It depends on whose expectations are meant. From the point of view of the expectations of society, there is nothing new in place. The voting and the campaign was just a guarantee of what was already in place. What I mean is that the process of forming a government has nothing to do with the understanding, aspirations, and wishes of society. The arrangement is the result of the scenario, not the abilities of the real political forces. For instance, the election of the Country of Legality Party was not consistent from the point of view of society. It is self-sufficiently formed within a narrow framework; it implements what has been already defined. It is sad. In this sense, disappointment, indifference, and hopelessness are shaping the form of the National Assembly with its present constitution. The same goes for the opposition. It came from an embodiment of hopes – the movement – to its logical place. Unfortunately, everything takes place in the framework of the political elite but our elite are not political in nature. ARF is an exception to some extent which has a political approach, the ANC could have one, but both were able to keep to their own line.

In Vanadzor the citizens won despite the scenario. What happened there?

The case of N30 comes to prove that there is no social understanding in the political field. The fact that a non-political person wins the elections means that society does not have any expectations from the political forces. The elections cannot be viewed in isolation from the real situation. It is the monopolized economy while the absence of competition in the economy will inevitably be expressed in the political process. No political force has the ability to have a social basis;   there are only emotional, national, expressions. ARF has its constant electorate. The Republicans cannot do without the administrative resources and the economic resource is interrelated. The PA is also a government resource which gained the economic expression of the administrative resource during Robert Kocharyan’s office, which needs to reach agreement with the political force controlling the administrative resource to ensure its existence because every serious effort to be independent will be doomed.

Mr. Sakunts, will civil society form a new and desired force in the absence of the opposition in the street? Is it the right time now?

It is very tempting to speak of such an idea. Of course, there is an opportunity but the civil sector, unfortunately, depends on foreign grants as there is no internal economic resource. I am not saying that the social institutions are not understood by society but how can they form a potential force which will have an essential influence and make change possible? There is skepticism because most of today’s voters see their main source of income in the kind of attitude of feudal lords. The voters tend to make corrupt deals by sacrificing their personal interests; the syndrome of survival is more dominant than the way proposed by a civil society because it pre-supposes difficulties. Civil society is a potential but in this situation I think it will be of random importance. It is important to have a serious internal re-grouping. Constituency 30 is in the center of Vanadzor where intellectuals and well-off people live. There was a Republican candidate; there was not a PA candidate. It was their shortcoming. Had there been a PA candidate, I very much doubt that the citizens would succeed in N30.

Exceptions come to prove that there was no essential rivalry.. The case of District N7 is very interesting where the factor of an individual was manifested. If Nicol was not nominated by the ANC but was simply nominated as Nicol (the ANC gained 18% of votes only due to Nicol, it was more than in other districts), the situation would be different. The factor of an individual is very important for social understanding but society does not trust the political factor. If values are not offered to a citizen, a voter, they go after money.

You mentioned that the election results caused disappointment. May it lead to greater emigration? Definitely, emigration increased during the pre-election campaign. This was not observed in 2008 because people saw an opportunity for a change and now there is no such opportunity, moreover, many will leave Armenia having no other alternative. A person’s escape from reality becomes a priority and all of the political powers must take on the responsibility for this. They forgot for a moment that they have a responsibility. For instance, Heritage and Social Democrats being quite different; united, perhaps Heritage would gain more votes if he remained alone but it is not clear why Styopa Safaryan appeared in last place. Political technologies or political changes were not clear to society, which is why society expressed its opinion adequately.

We have a governed democracy, as Putin said, and this democracy is authoritarian in itself. The Russian model of governed democracy was best applied during these elections. While at District N 30, by electing Edmon Marukyan, voters showed that they are ready to overcome the governed mechanism, which is they must be given an alternative;  a notion. While the campaign motto was – No vote for the criminal regime, it is already overcome. Sorry, but what do you offer voters so that they are not corrupted? After World War 2, in Italy when the economy was broken, 45% of 16-18 years old women were involved in prostitution, and mainly by American soldiers who used their service., A man had no opportunity for choice and this was the only opportunity; now, you ask the voter why he takes bribes but what else do you offer him so that he is valued properly? You give no opportunity to him. This was the kind of choice offered to voters.

We did not have the intrigue of belief, that notion died during these elections. It could have attracted voters, but instead we had «”I am good, that other one is bad: option, which works no longer.

Do you think this will last till 2018?

No, something will emerge. The place will not remain vacant. I do not think they will stand it inside long, can one or two people change the situation? If they are able to overcome the framework of political agreements, it will be an important step, but were these agreements so weak that people can overcome them?

www.lragir.am