“Zhoghovurd” writes: “The March 1 rally called by the Armenian National Congress (HAK) is a good occasion to check whether the “popular movement” launched by former president Levon Ter-Petrosian is still alive or it has faded away along with the withdrawal of the resources of [Prosperous Armenia Party leader] Gagik Tsarukian.” The paper also wonders whether the main criticism at the rally held on the seventh anniversary of the 2008 deadly post-election clashes will be leveled at President Serzh Sarkisian, to whom Ter-Petrosian recently offered a tete-a-tete meeting, or his predecessor Robert Kocharian, who patronized Tsarukian, with whom Ter-Petrosian’s cooperation has effectively failed.
“Zhamanak” says that HAK leader Ter-Petrosian has long tried to show that he controls the BHK, but it turned out that the one who controls it is Kocharian. “After that Ter-Petrosian offered cooperation to Sarkisian, but the latter rejected this offer because he can rebuff the Tsarukian-Kocharian pressure without Ter-Petrosian… The HAK, in fact, remains empty-handed,” the paper writes.
“Chorrord Ishkhanutyun” describes the Tuesday parliamentary debate during which majority party representatives attacked HAK members as the continuation of the government crackdown on the opposition launched by President Sarkisian by his February 12 speech: “Simply the performers and the methods were different, because after “neutralizing” the BHK the task was also to “neutralize” the HAK. But since there are essential differences between these two parties, the performers and the methods also had to be different. They can’t accuse Ter-Petrosian of evading taxes, just like they can’t find prostitutes at a hotel that would belong to [HAK parliamentary leader] Levon Zurabian. That’s why instead of police task force they use the rhetorical skills of ruling party members and “outspoken” oppositionists.”
“Hayots Ashkhar” suggests that the rejection by the legislature of the opposition-drafted resolution on a “government crisis” shows that most of the members of the National Assembly are “sane people”. “Such a ratio of members has always been typical of the parliaments of civilized countries. Otherwise no progress would have been registered anywhere,” the paper says.