Your Proposal is Even Offensive: Suren Grigoryan Responds to Edgar Arakelyan

ARJ "My Step" deputy Suren Grigoryan, addressing the post of former MP Edgar Arakelyan, wrote on his Facebook page: "Dear Edgar Arakelyan, since you directed your question to each MP of 'My Step', I will respond on my part.

So, dear Edgar, I consider both the National Assembly and the 'My Step' faction, as well as the Civil Contract to be institutions. Institutions have a certain hierarchy and individuals who can be said to be authorized to speak on behalf of these institutions. Yesterday, if you were attentive, the leader of the 'My Step' faction apologized on behalf of the faction for the incident that occurred. Do you think Lilit Makunts would allow herself to speak on behalf of the faction if she were not sure there was consensus in the faction regarding what she said?

Then, Nikol Pashinyan, who is the political leader of our political team, addressed the situation in much greater detail and gave direct and indirect assessments of the incident and the phenomenon of violence six times in his speech. Specifically:

• At 1:20 of his speech: "I want to unequivocally and categorically emphasize my attitude by saying that I condemn any form of violence in all its manifestations."
• At 4:32: "The incident, which is condemnable, occurred there, below the podium."
• At 5:50: "I want to say directly: but I also condemn the fact that we give in to provocations. I condemn my brother, my friend, because we have no right to give in to provocations."
• At 7:44: "And yes, I condemn us, I condemn myself, and I regard what happened today as the greatest loss we have had since the Revolution."
• At 10:50: "Violence has no place in our reality, and that incident must never be repeated again. It must not be repeated."
• At 12:18: "But I want to say again: yes, people, we lost. I condemn you, dear Mr. Mikayelyan, I condemn myself, I condemn us, I condemn the service to the people of the Republic of Armenia, the people of Artsakh, and the values that have become the locomotive, the driving force of the peaceful, velvet, popular revolution of 2018."

I have posted the speech containing all the aforementioned excerpts on my page.

Now, if you think that after all this, I should make another post so that everyone can see that I agree with all the assessments and share them, I do not think so.

As for referring to provocations, if you or another person thinks that referring to provocations means that we are justifying ourselves, then, excuse me, that is a matter of perception. We have very clearly fixed our attitude towards what happened, but we have also considered it necessary for the context to be clear because the situation in which you apply violence against another for merely holding a differing opinion differs from the situation where your counterpart continuously provokes you, insults you, and reacts to your speeches with cynical laughter.

Must a politician be prepared for all this? Definitely yes. Does this transform yesterday's unacceptable phenomenon into an acceptable one? Definitely no. Does it affect the degree of guilt of the perpetrator? In my opinion, yes.

Let me also address the following part of your post: "Regardless of whether it is there or not, at least for the sake of appearances, for the sake of history, to be transparent before the citizens who elected you and pinned their hopes on you, in order to maintain the right to give a strict assessment of similar phenomena in the future, to keep your conscience clean." Is this serious? This means your suggestion is that according to you, without condemning violence, what I should write or say for the sake of appearances or reputation, something value-based that I might or might not believe in? I have always believed and I believe that the large or small number of people who know me and wish for me to continue my activity as a deputy should be disappointed in me if one day I do what you proposed just for 'appearances', saying or writing without believing in what I wrote or said. To be frank, your proposal is even offensive.

As for the right to urge, I must say that almost everyone, both inside the team and outside, can make such appeals, and we listen to what everyone says, except for those circles known to you.

Regarding your right to DEMAND, while respecting your decision and not evaluating it, I will say that making such a decision is often easier than not making such a decision.

P.S. I apologize if I responded too harshly in some parts, but the reason for that is precisely your very one-sided and erroneous criticism, which I will not cease to pay close attention to."