You cannot build a state by constantly shouting that your predecessors were scoundrels

President Armen Sarkissian will pay a working visit to the Federal Republic of Germany to attend the official opening ceremony of the Munich Security Conference. During the conference, President Sarkissian will hold several meetings with his counterparts from various countries and other senior officials. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan will therefore not attend the conference. Could Armen Sarkissian’s participation be considered more effective? Expert Arbak Khachatryan believes that expectations of Sarkissian were not especially high initially, but his conduct and statements during this period have generated positive expectations.

— Mr. Khachatryan, what are your observations on this? Do you think President Sarkissian’s participation will be more effective?

— Perhaps the prime minister’s status is higher, but the president is in no way inferior in his work. When he became president, I hoped for nothing—not only from him personally, but from that institution itself. The presidency has no powerful levers, and everyone knows it, but I am now changing my opinion: substantial work is possible even with limited opportunities. The people were disappointed with the authorities who had plundered them and initially regarded Armen Sarkissian as part of those authorities; we cannot say that about the present situation. We know President Armen Sarkissian has good contacts abroad, and now I hope, and am also confident, that the forthcoming meetings will be no less effective than if Prime Minister Pashinyan went.

In general, there are now very serious problems in Armenia: we are entering the legal framework with an extremely poor economy, and it is quite clear that protests will increase. Without economic avenues on the international stage, imposing taxes under international norms and demanding them from a people accustomed only to plunder is an enormous mistake; they did not even forgive bank interest. All this will increasingly cause greater disappointment. I hope both the president and the prime minister will find effective paths. I accept the president’s approach that a young elite exists that can put the economy on its feet. I like this approach of his very much, and if we succeed in this area and are not dependent on material things, I am confident we will succeed.

— Is there cooperation between the prime minister and the president in foreign policy, or does the internal disagreement of the first post-revolutionary period still persist?

— Since all state institutions have until now operated with different approaches, and there was a pyramid, it will be very difficult now. We must not deny what Armen Sarkissian did during the revolution either; his contacts abroad greatly helped the processes. On the specific question, one important observation: the institution of envy exists in Armenia. If you praise one person, envy arises in another. Look at the generals of the 1990s: people who did enormous things for their homeland and then began plundering. In any event, disagreements are not visible now.

— So the constitutional crisis discussed previously is no longer a threat?

— I do not see anything like that now. As for statements directed at the president during the revolution, I would say Pashinyan had promised to change and do many things. But he came and saw that taking on legal responsibility made it impossible to accomplish all that. All institutions would collapse. To me, the most important thing was that all financial levers remained in the hands of people acting unlawfully, and over the years they will be used against inexperienced people who had dreams.

Someone who spent a few days marching and following Nikol must now run a huge institution; imagine what is happening. The situation really is difficult. Simply opening criminal cases against Robert Kocharyan will not build a state; we will not build a state without resources and institutions. All right, the former rulers were scoundrels, but we will not build a state by constantly reminding people, shouting and saying that the former rulers were scoundrels and plunderers. I call that young man who used to march in the street today: it would probably be easier to resolve an interstate issue than to explain to this young man what the state needs.

If Armen Sarkissian can resolve something positively for the country, you should simply be pleased and happy; neither envy nor any other issue should stand in its way.