“Hraparak” finds it ‘unnatural’ that almost 40 days after the presidential election the opposition still demands that ballot boxes be unsealed for a vote recount. “It was patently clear even on the day after the election that there was nothing wrong in the ballot boxes in the sense that every wrong thing had been done before they were even sealed and whatever they didn’t have time to do was done later on. So, it would only suit the government to make such a demand to prove its innocence. But such a demand becomes even more so meaningless considering that the Constitutional Court has already delivered its verdict.”
“Chorrord Inknishkhanutyun” suggests that President Serzh Sarkisian is apparently vexed by his challenger Raffi Hovannisian’s ‘game’ that goes beyond the boundaries of his scenario: “In this scenario Sarkisian is seeking to get rid of other oligarchs only to become the only oligarch in Armenia, thus taking full control of the political and economic spheres of the country. And Hovannisian has a major role in this matter: he is supposed to become ‘the opposition leader’ and demand on behalf of the people that Sarkisian get rid of the oligarchs and government officials who have set up their own strong political teams.”
“Zhoghovurd” argues that no consolidation of the opposition has taken place on the wave of Hovannisian’s post-election protests. “Moreover, a further split has emerged among opposition factions and it only tends to widen,” the paper says. “The Yerevan municipal elections, of course, were the touchstone, but negotiations over contesting these polls with a single front as always ended in mutual accusations.”
“Aravot” emphasizes that negotiations regarding concessions could be conducted only between a government and an opposition and not between two rival opposition groups. “Opposition and non-opposition forces can unite, be guided from all sorts of joint headquarters, can form alliances and single fronts ahead of elections. It is another matter how frank they are to the people by engaging in such cooperation. But when Raffi Hovannisian is accused of ‘being sold’ to Serzh Sarkisian for his readiness to engage in a dialogue and in reply to that they raise the question: “Why did you criticize opposition leader Levon Ter-Petrosian for his ‘political analysis’ and now keep silent or consider the Sarkisian-Hovannisian dialogue acceptable?”, then only one question has to be asked: is the Prosperous Armenia Party a supreme authority for the Armenian National Congress and not an ‘alternative’ to the government?”
(Aghasi Yenokian)
“Chorrord Inknishkhanutyun” suggests that President Serzh Sarkisian is apparently vexed by his challenger Raffi Hovannisian’s ‘game’ that goes beyond the boundaries of his scenario: “In this scenario Sarkisian is seeking to get rid of other oligarchs only to become the only oligarch in Armenia, thus taking full control of the political and economic spheres of the country. And Hovannisian has a major role in this matter: he is supposed to become ‘the opposition leader’ and demand on behalf of the people that Sarkisian get rid of the oligarchs and government officials who have set up their own strong political teams.”
“Zhoghovurd” argues that no consolidation of the opposition has taken place on the wave of Hovannisian’s post-election protests. “Moreover, a further split has emerged among opposition factions and it only tends to widen,” the paper says. “The Yerevan municipal elections, of course, were the touchstone, but negotiations over contesting these polls with a single front as always ended in mutual accusations.”
“Aravot” emphasizes that negotiations regarding concessions could be conducted only between a government and an opposition and not between two rival opposition groups. “Opposition and non-opposition forces can unite, be guided from all sorts of joint headquarters, can form alliances and single fronts ahead of elections. It is another matter how frank they are to the people by engaging in such cooperation. But when Raffi Hovannisian is accused of ‘being sold’ to Serzh Sarkisian for his readiness to engage in a dialogue and in reply to that they raise the question: “Why did you criticize opposition leader Levon Ter-Petrosian for his ‘political analysis’ and now keep silent or consider the Sarkisian-Hovannisian dialogue acceptable?”, then only one question has to be asked: is the Prosperous Armenia Party a supreme authority for the Armenian National Congress and not an ‘alternative’ to the government?”
(Aghasi Yenokian)