The Story of Billions Left by Karen Karapetyan Repeats Itself: "Zhamanak"

"Zhamanak" newspaper writes: Economic Development and Investments Minister Tigran Khachatryan stated yesterday during a briefing with reporters that 83 investment projects are being discussed, with a total volume of $3.3 billion, of which certain steps have already been taken regarding $800 million.

The minister's announcement bears a striking resemblance to the investment reports of former Prime Minister Karen Karapetyan, who also spoke about billion-dollar projects. However, when it comes to specific questions related to all this, it turns out that there are not many concrete answers or demonstrable actions.

This essentially operates on the traditional logic of propaganda or information, according to which it is deemed important to present citizens with loud figures, speaking about billions. Is it true that the $3.3 billion includes the billions or figures that Karapetyan also talked about, or do we have entirely new intentions or ideas in this case? But, overall, this issue is not significant because, in fact, the logic of presentation centers on the same "billions" presented by Karen Karapetyan and the former system.

Discussions about millions or billions should occur when they are made concrete, when they materialize. And for the very concretization and materialization of these, it is essential to talk about very specific regulatory changes, legislative initiatives that expand the advantageous field for economic activity, and of course, tax reform.

Billions say nothing to the business community and do not convey a message to the middle class. This may perhaps be material for the consumption of the existing "lumpen" society. However, in the modern world, neither the government nor the opposition can sustainably base their reforms on the “lumpen” population.

The “lumpen” is a risk to reform, an obstacle, a danger, sometimes an enemy. The engine or support of reform is the contemporary social strata. And they consume very specific legislative steps, not "declarative billions." Consequently, their questions, for example, about tax legislation, are delayed on one hand, while on the other hand, the public is presented with a version of the Tax Code amendment that, to put it mildly, fundamentally does not differ from the legislation adopted by the previous government, according to experts.

These are serious issues that should be at the center of economic policy and its corresponding communication strategy, and thus in the parliamentary agenda. Ultimately, slightly modifying a well-known expression, we can state: tell me what the parliament's economic agenda is, and it will be clear what the logic and vector of economic policy are. In this regard, at least for now, the parliament's economic agenda raises questions.

For more details, see today’s edition of the newspaper.