What worries Pashinyan more, the fact that corruption is rampant in Armenia, or the fact that the international institutions are no longer so kind to him that they fix the situation, although not on the scale that actually exists in the country? During the question-and-answer session with the government, Pashinyan says one thing, the next day, during the government session, something completely different. they probably explained that what was said the previous day was completely beyond the limits of elementary reason.
During the question-and-answer session with the government, Pashinyan revealed for himself that Armenia has fallen from 58th place to 63rd place among the countries in terms of corruption. Speaking in the Parliament about Armenia’s retreat, he says: “I think media publications about corrupt deals made by this or that officials play a role here.” And as a solution, he proposes a resolution for those officials to apply to the courts in order to prove their innocence. There is a hidden threat in Pashinyan’s speech to the media that the legal prosecutions will intensify if you continue to talk about the corruption of the government.
If the media and their publications are to blame for the perception of corruption in the country, then it turns out that there was no corruption during the previous governments, and Armenia’s low rating in the ratings of international institutions was made only on the basis of media publications, including “Haykakan Zhamna” edited by Nikol Pashinyan. publications. It’s just that the previous authorities did not have enough intelligence to propose such a mechanism at the level of the head of the country, to go to court for every publication and silence the press.
Aren’t Pashinyan and his government corrupt, or are the local press and the international institutions giving a thumbs up to the government? Two ministers of Pashinyan’s government, Minister of Defense Davit Tonoyan and Minister of Emergency Situations Andranik Piloyan, are currently or were in prison, they are accused of being involved in corruption transactions. If two ministers of Pashinyan’s government are accused of corruption, this directly means that his government is corrupt.
Pashinyan can say that these accusations have not yet been confirmed, and until they are confirmed, they and, therefore, his government cannot be considered corrupt. But in a corrupt country, such accusations can be refuted in a different way. Pashinyan can say that the arrest of two ministers means that his government is so honest that it fights against corruption. But the arrest of those ministers may mean that those ministers were not so honest that they did not deduct the money earned as a result of corrupt transactions to the person holding the position of prime minister, and now they are being punished not for corruption, but for dishonesty and dishonesty in personal relationships. Perhaps they remain under criminal prosecution because
Or how should a journalist or mass media prove in court whether or not this or that official is corrupt, how should they reveal whether there is a risk of corruption in that transaction or not? For example, I argue that there is a risk of corruption in the deal for four SU-30 military aircraft purchased for $120 million, because these aircraft were purchased and not even used during the war. Not only Defense Minister Davit Tonoyan, who is accused of corruption, but also Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who is not accused of corruption, gave his consent to the purchase of those planes, because the accusers are his actual subordinates.
Now, if Pashinyan applies to the court with a political lawsuit, how should I prove whether there is a corruption risk in that transaction or not? How should I prove whether Pashinyan was materially interested in agreeing to the purchase of those useless aircraft, or whether it was simply a senseless, pointless waste of state funds? It turns out that if I can’t prove the existence of a corruption risk in it, then there is no corruption in the transaction. Although it is possible that the court will consider it proven that those planes flew during the war and performed a combat mission, and Armenia won the war and liberated the territories. In the case of Pashinyan’s government, everything is possible, because if the court does not make such a decision, there is a Supreme Court subordinate to Pashinyan, which will also remove the judge. This is not the remnant Armenia of the past.
Of course, if Armenia was a normal democratic country, where there really were independent law enforcement bodies and courts, then they would have initiated a criminal case a long time ago and found out which of those two options is true, and, according to that, Pashinyan would have been accused of either corruption, or in wasting public funds. But we will never witness it. If we are a democratic country, maybe Pashinyan, understanding and realizing his political responsibility in causing such enormous damage to the state, would resign and try to reduce the assumed responsibility for what he did, but we will not witness that either.
The only thing we will witness is the continued growth of corruption and the intensifying struggle to cover it up and speak out about it.
Avetis Babajanyan