Does Kocharian still claim to be the only man in Armenia?

You know, not that I want to back Ter Petrosian in this, but some issues should now be raised after Kocharian’s response, I think.

First of all, why on earth did abandon his native Karabakh to become prime minister under Ter Petrosian in 1997 given that the 96 election was falsified, why did he breach the constitution to run in the 98 election, did he not only inherit the system of corruption and take it to new heights and so on. I also think Kocharian could publicly acknowledge that he should never have allowed the sale of ArmenTel to the Greeks as well, and so on.

Also, I don’t think you can compare state budgets in a transitional former Soviet republic ten years apart. Perhaps if it was 4 years after a change of power, but not 10 years. Of course, it’s true that the budget has been increased significantly since 2003, however, although as Observer has questioned on this blog recently, how has that been achieved and what is the true worth of that increase given the appreciation of the dram and what some believe to be “hidden” inflation.

All that said, though, if Kocharian’s response can be seen to be infantile, Ter Petrosian’s can be criticized as well. As Vazgen Manoukian and others have said, rather than attack the government for pretty much the same crimes that can be said about his own regime, he could have at least shown some remorse and apologized. However, he didn’t, and I think that shows a breathtaking arrogance.

Still, with the first and second presidents openly attacking each other, perhaps this can now encourage a real analysis and debate about both their administrations and where Armenia is as a country. I thought it interesting, for example, how Artmika wrote in his post that he favors continuity, stability and the status quo. As I said, this might be a very interesting discussion to watch unfold, and one that might force some real debate between candidates, including from Sarkisian.

Regarding what Armine says, it is unfortunate, however, that what we might be seeing is a struggle between candidates who were both part of the system in the 1990s and who perhaps offer nothing different to the system in place today. Likewise, it is also unfortunate that we have no clear alternative opposition candidate in sight who might be able to take on Sarkisian thanks to petty rivalry and personal ambitions in the opposition ranks as well as in civil society.

Artur Baghdasarian and Raffi Hovannisian’s parties represent the new opposition — and one that is fresher and has more potential than we had in 2003. Yet, once again, we seem to be looking at the same old stagnant names who have already lost all credibility with the electorate. The system, perhaps, will continue to replicate itself.

Observations of Hrant Bagratian, who served between 1993-1996 as one of the few prime ministers with the longest tenure of the post-Soviet Armenia, were noteworthy. […] With Bagratian, I talked about the return of Levon Ter Petrosyan, first Armenian president and a pro-solution liberal, to politics. Approaches of Ter Petrosyan, a potential candidate for the presidential election in 2008, to the Karabakh issue and the Armenia-Turkey relations are well known. I had the impression from Bagratian that these approaches are getting unambiguous. For instance, I took notice that regarding the Armenian question there will be no claim for land and indemnities, the diaspora’s intervener attitude will be balanced and dialogue will be developed with the Turkish public opinion. All these without renouncing the demand for the recognition of the Armenian genocide. Ter Petrosyan’s stance is a key for the sake of discussions in Turkey and Armenia, even if he is not elected president.

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=84082