The First Political Event of 2011 Should be Considered a Dialogue
00:00, August 1, 2011 | Press Release
After the second meeting of HAK (Armenian National Congress) -Government, David Harutyunyan, head of the Coalition delegation noted that one of the main objectives of the meeting was the request for live broadcasting of the meeting.
“We are strongly convinced that live broadcasting of the dialogue would mean presentation of viewpoints to the public other than a central dialogue.”
Yesterday we had a talk with Artur Sakunts, Head of Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor, over this case. Sakunts pointed out that David Harutyunyan’s confessions about electronic mass media in the RA being under the direct supervision of the Government were quite bizarre. “D. Harutyunyan did not even attempt to say that the issue was out of his authorization. Public television should be open to everyone and he is not the decision maker. First of all, D. Harutyunyan views himself as an authorized person, a decision maker, determining who can express an opinion or perspective. Secondly, any negotiation is based on a variety of viewpoints, which means, there can be no negotiations without diverse perspectives. If there is a subject of negotiations, usually, there are issues and there are a variety of opinions over those issues; it is in fact the reason for negotiations”!
Artur Sakunts stressed that such meetings related not to Davit Harutyunyan or HAK, Government or opposition, but toevery RA citizen, who must be informed of what is being discussed and how it is done.” However, D. Harutyunyan disregards this opportunity. If the negotiations were to be held on the Karabakh conflict, which is a topic of interstate relations, it would be conceivable, but the meetings over internal political issues, cannot be viewed at the diplomatic level. Therefore, my (D. Harutyunyan) right to freedom of information is being violated by H1.” D. Harutyunyan also announced that, as a rule, no live broadcasting was allowed during dialogues, because it substantially reduced its efficiency. However, Artur Sakunts pointed out the presidential elections in the Ukraine as an example. “There was serious internal political crisis during the elections of Yushchenko, but the negotiations, relating to overcoming the contradictions of internal political crisis, were open and were being explained. It is a vivid example, and it should be added, that the internal political issues were triggered by the lack of transparency and accountability, and that is why the crisis was created. Do the authorities want to overcome the current crisis by means of the same methods? That is why the claim of the Armenian National Congress, if fully justified, and society, should be notified about the negotiation procedures. Eventually, public awareness is a commitment to people, over the issues of which negotiations are being held.”
Sakunts prioritized the dialogue launched in Armenia, “This is an exceptional phenomenon in the new history of Armenia. This should be considered the first political event of 2011. If there is no crisis, why did the authorities agree to dialogues, they could have discussed all the issues with the political fractions in the Parliament? It means that the authorities realize there are unresolved issues that have brought them to dialogue with non-parliamentary political powers.”“What should be done to make the negotiations more efficient, we asked Sakunts. “After each meeting, at least one press release about the subject of the meeting must be disseminated, because it increases the level of responsibility towards society and one another.
Secondly, a joint press conference must be convened after each meeting. The government has committed itself to it; for that purpose a public discussion over the negotiations should be organized through Public Television with the participation of various experts and supporters on both sides. Therefore, broad public awareness should be allowed, because a very serious political procedure is happening.”
At the end of the second meeting with the Congress, D. Harutyunyan noted they had informed the Representatives of Congress, that if any of them were invited to a TVshow, the first question posed to the relevant TV Company would be if an invitation had also been sent to the Congress Representatives adding they would agree to participate, provided they were certain the Congress Representatives had been invited. This allows the heads of the private TV companies to bring up justification that they are “independent” and are not responsible to carry out the demand of the Coalition and invite the representatives of the Congress.“In this case D. Harutyunyan has made his subsequent confession of which we have been aware of for a long time. It means that private TV companies, considered to be “independent”, fully depend on the authorities from the viewpoint of interpreting political procedures. In this case, presentation of a demand by him is bizarre. On that day he noted that ANC representatives had been invited by some TV companies. This apparently proves they have given their “approval”. It appears that the information flow is formulated based on the demands of the authorities. If David Shahnazaryan and Vahagn Khachatryan are invited to a TV show once or twice, or a press conference is being videotaped, it should be noted that directed interpretation proves that the authorities have not grasped the whole essence of dialoguing. As previously indicated, the authorities fear publicity seeking security in the measures of interpretation controlled by them. Unfortunately, D. Harutyunyan proves that the authorities are controlled by a closed mentality. It seems that forces on both sides are dialoguing, which is not permissible from the perspective of political culture.”
Artur Sakunts later addressed the agenda proposal by the authorities on “Setting regulations that ensure civil competition to hold proper elections.” He wondered what that in fact could mean. “At first, the Government points out that the functioning laws cannot provide “formation of regulations that ensure civil competition”… It means they put aside the Electoral Code and draft new laws, which will play a more crucial role for them than the ones prescribed by law.
Via this confession, the authorities in Armenia asserted that none of the elections held by them were free and fair because those rules were not drafted. The new rules are yet to be drafted. In this case, they should make amendments to the Electoral Code instead of drafting new laws, so that these regulations can have a legal basis to make their game rules known by us. Should the citizens be led by law or by the regulations of the Government”? Artur Sakunts approved of the deadline of September set by the Congress and hopes that there will be consistency, so that the authorities do not prolong the negotiation for an undefined period.