Two Contradictory Approaches on Kocharian's Mandate within the Alliance

According to the "Hraparak Daily," "After pondering for exactly one month and two days after the Constitutional Court's decision, Robert Kocharian has resigned from his mandate. 'With this step, I also express my agreement with thousands of my teammates who have conveyed to me the opinion that after the presidents of Artsakh and Armenia I should not be tempted by a parliamentary mandate. Finally, I was voted for as the candidate for prime minister of the alliance,' Kocharian said.

Within the alliance, there were two contradictory approaches regarding whether to take or not take Kocharian's mandate. Some believe that Kocharian should not sit in the same chamber with 'individuals with backpacks,' while others think that they will be much more presentable and stronger with him. There is a certain level of disappointment among some of those who voted for the alliance; rather, a question: is the goal of this struggle just for a group of alliance members or other opposition members to enter the National Assembly? After all, people voted for Robert Kocharian.

We inquired how the political forces assess Kocharian's resignation. From the ruling party, Hovik Agazaryan said, 'I have addressed this issue and said that he would resign from the mandate because, on the one hand, he has nothing to do in parliament, and on the other hand, he had no interesting work to do there. It was logical. I was not the only one who predicted this; many, many others were as well.' It is said that in the ruling party, they were so pleased with Kocharian's step that they even opened champagne. Agazaryan added, 'The only person who could drink champagne because he is very afraid of him is me, and I didn't drink. I am a coward.'

As for whether the parliamentary opposition would be stronger with or without Kocharian, Agazaryan noted, 'As the people politically buried him, if he came to parliament, it would have been his seven and forty, therefore, he had nothing to do there. What should he have done—given speeches in Armenian or rallied his faction?' It was observed that during the session of the All-Armenian Fund, he was explaining in Armenian to Nikol Pashinyan what should not be done. Agazaryan countered, 'If you believe that he speaks Armenian well, then my and your understandings of the meaning of mastering the Armenian language differ.'

Almost all MPs from the 'Honorary' alliance refused to comment for various reasons, suggesting to call Arthur Vanetsyan. From the Republican Party, Armen Ashotyann said, 'Why should I comment on the decision of the leader of another alliance?' Many from the 'Armenia' alliance also refused to speak. Only alliance members Taron Tonoyan and Lilit Galstyan did not evade answering. Taron Tonoyan said, 'I was in favor of him taking it, but it is his decision, and we respect his choice.' When asked if they would be stronger with Kocharian, Tonoyan responded they would still be united, but it would have been more appropriate that way. Lilit Galstyan also said, 'It is Robert Kocharian's personal decision, which is respected. I appreciate the results achieved by the alliance under his leadership, taking into account the atmosphere of moral-psychological, political terror, and persecution in society, the unfinished war, and the presence of Turks in the territory of Armenia. In this atmosphere, under Robert Kocharian's political leadership, our alliance, in my opinion, has made a significant breakthrough. Especially since Nikol Pashinyan has only 26 percent of the votes from voters, and I am confident that with our 29 mandates, we will be able to present both our political agendas to the public and also awaken the Armenian people, who, in my deep conviction, are not aware due to moral-psychological pressures and other reasons. I personally would really want Robert Kocharian to continue fighting with us in parliament. He will continue to be the leader of the 'Armenia' alliance, and you will see his support and leadership in both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary struggles. Since we are going to adopt all potential political methods of struggle—both parliamentary formats and extra-parliamentary ones, in accordance with international laws and conventions—our struggle will continue. Our agenda has not changed since November 20,' Lilit Galstyan stated.

We also tried to hear the opinions of extra-parliamentary forces. Gevorg Petrosyan, who left the BHK, said, 'It is not a matter of positive and negative. Of course, Robert Kocharian's physical presence in the NA during plenary sessions could have been a restraint for many, but he is not the kind of person who, by merely being present, acts as a restraint. He even became a restraint for Nikol Pashinyan while in captivity. Write this down—he is a restraint for Nikol Pashinyan and his team. And, in my opinion, if he found it appropriate this way, then we must reconcile with that decision. Therefore, that is the right way.'

From the Dem Alliance, Aram Sargsyan stated, 'Nothing will change as long as Robert Kocharian is involved in discussions and leads the faction from outside. I don't know how appropriate his physical presence would be if he took the mandate.' Varujan Avetisyan from the Alliance of National Freedom said, 'I believe it is not a significant phenomenon.' Albert Baghdasaryan also added, 'I am not interested in Russian projects.'