Tuesday, January 14 2014

Mr. Martirosyan, would you comment on the processes
inside your party. The reshuffles inside the parliamentary faction of your
party are mostly taken as a split. Mass media reports on these processes show
the public attention to your party and expectations from it.

 

We have always been active and will keep acting
consistently also in 2014. I think it would be wrong speaking of any split in
the party as our actions are based on the idea of a united and consolidated
fight. Furthermore, we have always supported the initiatives of oter political
forces, civil movements, including the movement of the Artsakh War veterans for
liquidation of the crisis situation in Armenia. I hope the efforts of the
veterans will not be useless and in February the opposition forces will launch
a political fight together with them. Heritage Party jointly with three
parliamentary parties Prosperous Armenia, ARFD and Armenian National Congress
fought against mandatory accumulative pension system and ratification of gas
agreements with Russia in the passed year. Interaction of these four political
forces, their political will and consistent actions along with other factors
may turn into en effective instrument of changing the power in the country. We
are well aware that without a shift in power, it is impossible to change the
government system. Long-term solution to problems and liquidation of the
challenges the country has faced implies shift in power, first of all.

 

Then, what made Tevan Poghosyan to waive his deputy
mandate?

 

We
met Tevan Pogosyan to discuss his decision. We positively assessed his activity
within the parliamentary faction. For his part, he assured us that his decision
to waive the mandate is not linked to the work of the faction. For this reason,
we called on him to revise his decision and go on working as a member of the
parliament. The rumors about disagreements within Heritage are conditioned by
several reasons, first of all, there is a certain interest to the activity of
the party. Secondly, this entire scrape is of an artificial nature.

 

The
point is that the challenges Armenia has faced are conditioned not so much by
the processes within the opposition, as by the policy of the authorities,
unfair distribution of incomes, corruption and other circumstances. And now to
draw the attention of our citizens away from such problems, the authorities
with help of their propaganda machine wipe up such myths and intrigues around
the opposition parties. I agree that the decision of a member of the parliament
to withdraw from a mandate should be covered by the press. But on the other
hand, it is obvious that this problem is not among the most acute ones in
Armenia today. There are more relevant problems linked with development of the
country and raising of effectiveness of the management system. 

 

Second president Robert Kocharyan has been recently
sharply criticizing these actions of the authorities. What do you think of such
“remote discussion” given that many government positions are still occupied by
the second president’s minions?

 

No
one leaves the political arena after stepping down as president. This also
concerns the second president of Armenia. The levers he had during his
presidency secure his impact on the political processes even after his
presidency. This is especially relevant for Armenia, where the system has not
changed even despite the change of the presidents and the opposition has never
come to power via free and fair elections. Today Kocharyan has damaging
information about a lot of people who are still at power and in business. Given
these factors, his impact is certainly immense.

 

In
the meantime, I rule out any possible conflict between Robert Kocharyan and the
incumbent President Serzh Sargsyan. I think that either of them has his own
team, and these teams may have discrepancies related to distribution of
resources, since the resources are getting fewer and fewer. Amid almost 70%
poverty in the country and large-scale migration, the fight for power will only
be intensifying. And the "conflict" between Kocharyan and the Prime
Minister should be considered in this context. It completely fits in the
context of "behind-the-scenes showdowns" inside the power.  Otherwise, Kocharyan would have criticized
the President, first of all, not the Prime Minister. The Head of the Government
is not a representative of a certain political team, he has not been conducting
his own policy, he was appointed by Serzh Sargsyan. And when Kocharyan chooses
the Prime Minister as a target, it becomes clear that there can be no real
conflict between the two presidents.

  

Depletion of resources and the countrywide
anti-governmental public protests against have not shattered the authorities
yet. Don’t you think that the parliamentary opposition is insufficiently
consistent in its actions and initiatives?

 

The Armenian authorities' positions remain strong,
first of all, because the fight against them is pinpoint, not large-scale. Most
of the citizens are still reluctant to take part in this fight. The citizens
fail to come to Liberty Square to express their protest and prefer expressing
their support via social networks only. This passivity is the key reason of
failures in the fight against the authorities' actions.  Physical presence is needed to gain
results.  The fight against the
authorities is being conducted discretely. 
Look at four parliamentary factions: Heritage, Prosperous Armenia, ARF
Dashnaktsutyun, and Armenian National Congress. Somewhere they join efforts,
for instance, to prevent introduction of the compulsory accumulative pension
system or ratification of the gas agreements with Russia. But in other affairs
they display different stances very often. 
However, one thing is clear. Change of power should become the priority
task. The oppositionist is convinced that if all the four forces realize this
necessity, if they understand that long- term reforms are possible in case of
change of power only, they must conduct a joint fight. In this case, the public
will also get involved in the fight by all means.

 

Will Prosperous Armenia Party that was once part of
the authorities fight against them now?

 

Many representatives of Prosperous Armenia say that it
can't go on this way and it is only the change of power that can improve the
socio-economic situation. But the question whether these statements will become
the official stance of that party and its leader is still hanging in the air.
The same concerns ARFD. Both of these forces were at the helm of state in their
day.

 Thank you