Friday, June 06, 2008

Nikol Pashinian: A few observations

The SS regime has advanced a number of propaganda expressions through its mouthpieces which re-emerge from press-conference to press-conference, from speech to speech, from interview to interview. The aim is to brainwash the audience.

And though the SS ideas have completely been disproved, they continue to circulate. The purpose of this article is to reflect upon these propaganda items and the questions surrounding them. I ask the reader to be forgiving if he or she notices repeated thoughts. And so, what does the regime insist on?

Argument # 1: The events of March 1 were not in the interests of the government and were beneficial to the opposition.

In reality this is not an argument but a simple desire. Obviously, it would have been better for the Kocharian-o-Serjist gang if March 1 did not happen and they managed to cling to power at the same time. The problem is that without the massacre of March 1, the Kocharian-Sargsian duo did not have any means to prolong its existence for a meaningful period of time. Nowadays the regime is betting on time but on March 1 or 2 time was running out for them. The collapse of the ruling clan was imminent without the attack on the Liberty Square and the ringing of shots. The massacre of March 1 was the only chance for the Kocharian-o-Serjist gang just like the October 27 of 1999 was at the time.

The Popular Movement, on the other hand, suffered heavy and irreversible losses on March 1. Its victorious march was halted because of the massacre and all the influential participants, a large chunk of the leadership ended up either in jail, went underground or became the target of the police. Kocharian thought that during the past 10 years he had managed to break the will of the people and had made them spineless. The Kocharian-Sargsian duo, however, was wrong. They were wrong, and just like the period before March 1, the time for the regime is running out: more importantly, it is the “extra time” or “overtime” that was added through violence that is running out.

Argument # 2: Serj Sargsian did not want to move to the Presidential Palace through a blood covered trail.

I can barely hold my laughter – Serj Sarsgian did not have any other way. The People associate his name with the management of the corrupt system. How could such a person have an illusion that he could become a president without violence? The violence had started long before Levon Ter Petrossian’s speech on September 21.

If Serj Sargsian does not want to be a blood-covered president, he can prove it easily: announce the date of his resignation within a week to be, say, October 1.
Let him prepare for free, fair and transparent elections until October 1; one suggestion could be to create a “Presidential Elections” TV channel instead of the “Culture” TV channel which would air only the materials provided by the presidential candidates be it free or for a fee.

Let the chief of the republic police be a person whose candidacy is given by Serj Sargsian but with the opposition’s consent. Let the people arrested for March 1 out of jail on bond and the prosecutions be stopped until the report published by an independent committee. Let Serj Sargsian, too, be a presidential candidate. In response to this, I am sure the opposition will agree not to hold any demonstrations save 1 or 2 informative gatherings.

This would be an eye-popping dialog.

And if the population elects Serj Sargsian as their president then it would amount to a suicide if the opposition does not congratulate him.

Argument # 3: The Levon Ter Petrossian campaign team was preparing for the post-electoral processes since the fall of 2007 instead of the elections.

The argument gets made to show that the Ter Petrosian campaign was not interested in the opinion of the people reflected through the elections but was rather interested in seizing power through post election processes. If the SS minions were not lazy, they could have found out that the Yerevan Municipality was notified and had acknowledged all the demonstrations that the team gathered around Ter Petrossian.

Contrast this with the post election period, i.e. since February 19. The Ter Petrossian campaign had notified the Yerevan Municipality about one gathering only for February 20. By law, such notifications to the municipality should have been made by February 17 at the latest.

In all the countries of the world the presidential candidates communicate with the electorate the day after the elections so there is nothing extraordinary about this. If they have won, this is where they are congratulated, or if they have lost, they congratulate the winner if the victory has been achieved through legal means.

It is worth to mention that Serj Sargsian had also planned a gathering on February 20 which did not take place.

If Levon Ter Petrossian was not campaigning for the elections but was waiting for the post election period, nobody was preventing his team to notify the municipality about meetings on February 21, 22, 23, 24 or any other days. Such meetings simply were not planned. The people loudly shouting this argument could have checked this out had they not been lazy; or maybe they do not lack stamina but honesty.

Argument # 4: The meetings at the Liberty Square that took place from February 20 to March 1 were illegal.

If the municipality was not notified about these meetings, which is the case, it still does not mean that they were illegal.

The law about Gatherings, Meetings, Demonstrations and Pickets up until March 19 allowed to initiate mass events without notifying anyone. During the round the clock meetings I was twice approached by the police about this and I patiently proved the legality of our actions. This happened in front of the cameras for the “02” TV show about the police. The police did not counter to my explanations and did not present any demands.

I have publicly invited the state lawyers to a discussion in my speeches at Liberty Square. The subject for this discussion would have been the issue of the legality of these meetings. To this day no one from the government has accepted my invitation. Implicitly, the government has admitted their defeat. By changing the aforementioned law, the Kocharian-o-Serjist gang has admitted that we acted within the confines of the law. They admitted this by coming up with the silly reason that they needed to conduct a search after they dispersed the people from the Liberty Square. The meeting on March 1 at the Miasnikian statue was legal as well.

Argument # 5: There is no guarantee that the losing candidate at the extraordinary elections will not bring his supporters to the street and destabilize the situation.

If a candidate is able to consistently attract up to one million people to his meetings after the elections, it means that he is not a losing candidate but a victorious one, and the results have been falsified. No politician can bring the people to the streets, and above all, keep them there if what he has to say is not the truth and his position is not factual and based on facts. And the people should have seen these same facts with their own eyes. And if so many people have seen these facts then we are dealing with widespread fraud.

Argument # 6: The Popular Movement is “color”-ed, i.e. is financed by the West.

This argument is being made so that to draw parallels between the Popular Movement and the Georgian or Ukrainian revolutions. But it is absurd to think that the West is trying to bring Levon Ter Petrossian to power while their monitors describe the elections, which ended up with Serj Sarsgian being declared the victor, “was conducted mostly in line with the country's international commitments”. And they said this while listing numerous facts of fraud and breaches of law.

What did this mean? This means that the West says: “Serj jan, even though you have not been elected, we are not against that you become the president”. If the West had a “color” outpost it would have not done this. There was a deal; but it was between different Western “institutions” and the Kocharian-o-Serjist gang. But now this deal is stuck in both the West’s and Serj’s throats.

Some Western bosses have seen that clouds are gathering above their heads and have decided to jump Serj’s sinking ship.

I would advise the ones who speak of a color revolution to read the OSCE reports prior to the Rose and Orange revolutions and compare them with the OSCE reports about the 2008 election. All this will be clear then.

And yes, do you think the Serjist “exit poll” from London appeared in Armenia by accident?

These were the government’s propaganda items that I wanted to talk about. But there is another issue that is important in this context. Some people, even those considered to be in the opposition, speaking about another oppositionist say “He is not a person who would pick up a stick”. This, obviously, is said in the context of the recent events. I.e. picking a wooden stick or a pipe implicitly becomes something to be condemned but without clarifying the circumstances.

But it has become clear that these people are the servants of the lawlessness and bespredel. Should a person refrain from defending himself, his sister, brother or child? Should he live crouched by submitting to the threats issued by the bespredel? No. Definitely no!
I want to say this to the people who picked a wooden stick to defend their mothers, wives and sisters. You are heroes, brothers, and I am prod to live among you. We will not initiate violence but we will not allow for others to commit violence against us. Be inspired, keep your chins high. Our victory is certain, so պայքար, պայքար մինչեւ վերջ, and so հի-մա, հի-մա, հի-մա.

P.S. A lot of songs about liberty and freedom have been written lately. I suggest an act; while driving, put these songs and turn up the volume as much as you can. The MP3-s are available for these songs.

P.S. 2. Galust Sahakian has been making predictions about the Movement. I want to make a prediction about him. Very soon Galust Sahakian will be holding press conferences to reveal the criminal nature of Robert Kocharian and Serj Sargsian. He will also declare that he has been an undercover member of Levon Ter Petrossian’s campaign.

P.S. 3. Here is an interesting observation. The people who most often talk about the fraud during the 1996 elections are the ones who were part of the government then, i.e. either were fraudsters themselves or served the fraudster team. In 1996 they never uttered a word about this. For example, Albert Bazeyan, or some journalists. Even Shushan Petrosian cites 1996, and we know that she was a palatial singer in 1996 as she is now.

The original Armenian language article can be accessed on Payqar.

1 comment:

tzitzernak said...

Thanks for this very important translation!