During the discussion of the government’s program in the National Assembly, PM Tigran Sargsyan appeared in a very awkward situation. He was criticized by four factions of the parliament: ARFD, ANC, PAP and Heritage.
It is not ruled out that if Tigran Sargsyan were opposition and had to comment on the same program, he would have criticized as well.
This does not mean that the opposition criticizes him only because it is opposition. This means that the program of the government is not a proper program. As member of Free Democrats Alik Arzumanyan said, if the government had introduced before the parliament a book of toasts, it would make no difference.
The point is that the program of the government with its general philosophy and ideology is completely acceptable and hardly any force will say they don’t want it. No one in a normal country would refuse the ideas and values which the government summarizes in its program.
But the issue is that it is necessary to dwell on specific phenomena of the Armenian reality – fusion of business and authorities, tax and customs reforms, law enforcement and equal opportunities, elimination of privileges granted to certain people.
There are concrete examples. The program of the government in Armenia should be based on these concrete examples. Moreover, no program is necessary, just a discussion with examples and names, because the program is not more powerful than the law, and if the law does not function in a country, no program can function. Consequently, it is necessary to speak about the reason why the Constitution and laws don’t work, why the mechanisms of regulation of the market does not work, why corruption mechanism works, who or what institutions are the pillars and sponsors of it, who hinders the reforms in any sphere and why these people or institutions are not removed.
The systems are formed by people and people keep the system, ensure its activities and its laws. Consequently, solving systemic issues without solving the issue of some circles of people is actually impossible.
But the authorities do not look at specific issues because specific involves them as well. But it is strange that it is not done by the force which declares itself an alternative to the authorities, the second biggest group in parliament the PAP which could at least give specific names and point out the spheres and phenomena which are expressed in one sphere or another bringing the issue to the specific level.
It is clear that the authorities avoid specific and sincere discussions and names for whatever reason. But why does the PAP avoid it? Why does it not try to force the government to speak with concrete names? May the reason be the fact that the authorities will point out to PAP members too engaged in business?
Armenia does not need a government program or its critics but a sincere talk of the government with the society and the political field, an open talk without any general assessments, but with names.
This sincere talk may give the same result of tens of programs, while until it is absent, the country will go on living with the effective program of the criminal-oligarchic system.