Their Main Issue Now Is To Ensure That Sarik Minasyan Does Not Become Mayor: Tunyan

Dear residents of Gyumri, you feel it, don’t you? Gyumri, despite its problems, has somehow been forgotten. This was written on Facebook by Babken Tunyan, a deputy of the ‘Civil Contract’ faction in the National Assembly.

“The pressing issue raised by the opposition is simple — how to prevent Sarik Minasyan, the candidate who has gathered the most votes from the Civil Contract party, from becoming mayor. In other words, for certain circles, this is the most crucial matter. Those who chant ‘Gyumri, Gyumri’ from morning till night; who glorify Gyumri, who struggle for it, and who live with the city's pains do not remember or speak about Gyumri and the people of Gyumri. What city plans, what city problems… What urban comforts, what psychological atmosphere... It is enough that the Civil Contract does not come to power, and that’s it; that’s what they need.

This pressing issue is so important for some circles that they are ready to impose a mayor on the residents of Gyumri, a figure that even they feel a certain internal discomfort regarding (some don’t even hide it). It doesn’t matter that this person is associated with criminal elements. It doesn’t matter that he has intriguing stories behind him and an ambiguous value system. It doesn’t matter politically if the Communist Party takes power in Gyumri.

And finally, it doesn’t matter that this person received 9,727 votes, which is 20.5% of the votes cast in the election, or 8.7% of those entitled to vote. Can you imagine that a force receiving 54% of the votes in nationwide elections is not considered legitimate? They can’t even bring themselves to call the Prime Minister ‘prime minister’ as they shower insults upon several hundred thousand voters from morning till night and initiate regime changes every couple of months, but their tens of thousands of votes are supposedly the will of the people, while making someone mayor who has gathered only 20% of the votes is portrayed as the people’s intention.

But this isn’t everything. At first glance, it might seem that if everyone’s goal is to prevent the Civil Contract from being in power, then there should be no obstacles. They quickly agree among themselves about whom to rally around and select an opposition mayor without personal or group ambitions. It doesn’t matter which opposition force’s representative becomes the mayor or what number they are. The important thing is that Sarik should not be there. But it turns out that everything is not so simple. It turns out that it is not enough to just prevent the Civil Contract from being in power; it is also significant who will take over the mayoral powers, who will be the deputy mayor, and so on. It is equally important who will join whom and who will be appointed to lead whom. There are countless nuances, old accounts, principles... And for two days now, they have been negotiating and bargaining.

This is the entire picture and reality. And what I’ve said is neither new nor a revelation. Everyone sees and understands this, first and foremost, the people of Gyumri. I have simply summarized how it is possible to try to solve other issues at the expense of Gyumri and its residents, under the pretense of their names.

By the way, judging by the reactions to my previous post, I will perhaps continue my thoughts to ensure that there are no unfinished matters or misunderstandings. I must reiterate: the voter is free to choose whomever they wish. Specifically, in the case of the people of Gyumri, who understand the X person or force best; if they decide to vote for him, then that is their will. They are at peace with that decision, desiring him to take the helm of their city, with all positive and negative aspects.

If they have chosen someone on someone else's urging, guidance, or certain interests, that is still their choice. It might not be pleasing to me or someone else; we might consider it good or bad, but no one has the right to deprive people of their ability to choose, nor to reject their collective choice. No one and no group can decide for the people what is right and what is wrong. That would be the biggest mistake.

Incidentally, it is precisely under this justification that elections have been falsified over the years, contending that ‘suddenly people might make the wrong decision.’ And if I or a number of other people think that the rise to power of X person or force is wrong, dangerous, or may have negative consequences, but that X person or force, with their ambiguous behavior, scandalous past, and unacceptable statements, manages to convince people to vote for them again, then they are evidently acting more wisely in certain matters than we do.

Therefore, the fault lies not with the voter but with us, who have failed to communicate our visions, plans, and concerns properly to the voter — not just with our words, but also through our behavior, our actions, and in many cases, our inactions. And when I say that this is a choice, and the result is what it is, it does not at all mean that what we have is satisfactory, in line with our hearts, without mistakes, and that we have nothing to ponder. No, dear compatriots, we have much to think about, to understand, and to re-evaluate... And this thinking is not about others but about ourselves — about our own mistakes and omissions, about what we have done and what we need to do. And we will definitely be thinking and will continue to do so with all the resulting conclusions,” concluded Babken Tunyan.