Wednesday, 20 November 2019

E Editorial

Why the political parties do not consist?

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
 

The talks about “hot” political autumn become more and more frequent in Armenian press and social networks. The discussions about snap parliamentary elections already turn into part of political discourse. On other hand the viewpoint about the collapse if political system is another mainstream theme of political discourse and apparently no one opposes to it. Thus what do we get in result – on one side we have talks about snap parliamentary elections, on the other side the thesis about loss of credibility by the political parties stands undisputed. This controversy gradually turns into a pivotal problem that Armenia has already faced.

If in result of change of power last year the political system had collapsed because the former game rules ceased to be applicable, then during a possible snap election how will the society make its choice, in favour of whom may it vote if the parties are in deep rest and the new rules for game aren't set yet.

Why had the political system collapsed? It seems there's a public consensus regarding its reasons—if there was public distrust towards elections it means there couldn’t be healthy competition among the parties, and the political life was regulated by shadow means. But then rises the question—what about now, what obstructs the political parties from re-establishing themselves and gaining public trust in new reality. Looking for a response to this question is important.

According to classical formulations the political parties are the holders of different viewpoints regarding to public needs and interests. Thus, repeating once again, the political parties constitute or establish themselves when they represent public interests, voice and express this or that public view. Yet what issues and viewpoints are dominating in today public life.

The key issues most likely relate to Nagorno Karabakh problem, to ecological and social agendas and perhaps to demands of “getting back what was robbed”.  The parties may institute themselves either in context of these issues, or a new public discourse should be established with further persuasion if public in its importance.

Let’s examine the above-mentioned topics one by one. The Nagorno Karabakh problem has long entered into manipulations' stage and all players without exclusion try either to conform it to their objectives or use it to discredit opponents. It will be difficult for public to make a right choice in this case because of absence of a clear national strategy here.

The mission of “bringing back what was robbed” is monopolized by Nikol Pashinyan, it's the alpha and omega of his propaganda, still how much will be succeed in that direction remains to see. Anyway, the one and half year didn’t suffice for setting a clear systemized policy in that direction.

Regarding to social factor, it should be noted this is an issue closely interrelated with “economic revolution” the fate of which is similarly unclear. The matter is that an “economic revolution” requires booming growth rates, still preconditions to it aren't in place and the force at power doesn't undertake any steps to prepare ground for such growth. The opposition on its turn isn't able to introduce relevant plan or roadmap.

Thus, there remains the ecological sphere the most actual component of which is the dispute around the Amulsar issue. It's not accidental that ecological issues may consolidate many people and their demands are understandable to wide classes of society.

From this viewpoint the consistency of political system (at power or in opposition) is tied to the issue of shaping public discourse, which is a rather complicated task.