“Chorrord Ishkhanutyun” says that political consequences of the post-election “revolt” against Gagik Tsarukian mounted by some of his allies elected to the Armenian parliament should not be overestimated. The paper claims that the April 2 elections were more of a “commercial transaction” than a democratic or even political process. “Therefore, the scandal related to the Tsarukian Alliance should be viewed as a commercial dispute,” it says. “By law, Gagik Tsarukian can do nothing against the rebels. He cannot prove in any court that he spent $9-10 million on the elections … So the only way to punish those who have fooled him is an illegal one. But it is not desirable at all. After all, they will now have parliamentary immunity.”
“Haykakan Zhamanak” says that Tsarukian’s pre-election agreements with these candidates, which apparently set conditions for their becoming parliament deputies, were “logical.” “But in Armenia things are certainly done differently and as the events have demonstrated, not only promises but also signatures cannot guarantee anything,” writes the paper. “You can easily renounce them.” It agrees with those who think that the revolt against Tsarukian was engineered by the authorities. “What else could have made them renege on their political gentleman’s agreements?” it asks.
“What happened yesterday in relation to the Tsarukian Bloc’s parliament seats has nothing to do with politics and morality,” writes “Zhamanak.” “We are talking about all participants of the fight for mandates: the kinglike person [Tsarukian] distributing them as well as those individuals who accepted them with an equally apolitical exuberance.”
“Zhoghovurd” reports and comments on the impending closure of the Yerevan office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which has been demanded by Azerbaijan. The paper criticizes the Armenian government as well as the international community for failing to prevent this development.