“Zhamanak” says that the still unanswered question of who will be Armenia’s prime minister after April 2018 is not as important as many think. The paper says the question of “who will be in opposition in Armenia” then is at least just as important. “Will there be any opposition at all?” it asks. “Will the opposition camp in Armenia manage to reset itself and present itself with a new structure, logic and agenda to the public?”
“Hraparak” says that President Serzh Sarkisian’s political allies claim that he is keen to hold on to power because he is only motivated by an altruistic desire “not to leave the country without a master.” The paper says even assuming that they are telling the truth this notion is not a convincing one. It says that what Sarkisian has created in the last ten years is not a well-functioning “system” but a “hierarchy” of individuals who care first and foremost about their status and remuneration.
“Zhoghovurd” criticizes Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian for stating during a visit to Greece that Armenia’s accession to the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union opened up “new opportunities” for commerce and investments. Nalbandian also argued that foreign investors can now use Armenia as a platform for tariff-free access to Russia’s market. The paper dismisses that argument, saying that Armenian exports remain modest despite the EEU membership.
“Aravot” suggests that most people who have emigrated from Armenia do not have accurate and objective information about the situation in their country of birth. “It’s not that they are unable to get such information,” editorializes the paper. “Thank God, information flows are abundant and diverse these days. It’s just that they and perhaps also their relatives and friends in Armenia filter information and the picture becomes one-sided and not objective.” Most emigres, it says, have a strong demand for only negative information about Armenia.