Alexander Iskandaryan: "Armenian authorities have got used to reduced internal legitimacy"

- How do you assess the current sociopolitical situation in Armenia?

- I would say it is quite stable. The post-election revolutionary wave has calmed down and the society stopped treating revolution as a real perspective, while the meeting activeness is dropping.

The country's authorities feel more confident inside the country, though certainly the weak legitimacy of powers is still obvious. But the Armenian authorities have got used to reduced internal legitimacy and they have to live this way for the past 15 years, which develops an immunity.

- What's your forecast about the development of the internal political situation in Armenia?

- If nothing extraordinary happens, the situation will remain stable. Elite groups are quite consolidated, there is little threat from outside for them and opposition is week. Street protests will continue, but opposition will be unable to change the political regime. The process of local elections shows that the powers have already sustained shock and opposition is unable to work in such a regime.

- Do you agree with the thesis of Azerbaijani political scientist Ilgar Mamedov that Serzh Sargsyan is growing aware of the cost of self-isolation, to which Armenia was led by Robert Kocharyan?

- This cost has been and is realized by all Armenian leaders, beginning with Ter-Petrosyan. This is a cost of Karabakh. Give Karabakh and you will get railroads and open borders for a year or so and this was clear even twenty years ago. Armenian society will have to live longer with this reality.

The situation is quite standard, by surrendering Jerusalem Jews will also improve their state, at least temporarily. It is not a difficult intellectual exercise for understanding it or no. But I do not know any examples of ethnopolitical conflicts, settled for railroads and highways.

- Meanwhile, former deputy Defense Minister of Armenia Vaan Shirkhanyan, speaking in mass media, said "the loss of the liberated lands means to surrender Karabakh, Zangezur and then the entire Armenia". Do you agree with this statement?

- Mr.Shirkhanyan's statement has an internal political context, it bears less relationship to Karabakh or Zangezur as compared to confrontation of different political powers inside Armenia. This rhetorics aims at positioning himself on the political arena.

As I am not a politician, I can not agree or disagree with such statements. Bright and "tasty" emotional phrases is a tool, used by politicians, not political scientists.

- In his time, former president of Armenia Ter-Petrosyan also urged to restore relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey. So, why is he now criticizing Serzh Sargsyan, who is making steps to restore relations between official Ankara and Yerevan?

- Because he is in opposition and opposition's business is to criticize powers. It has little do to with Turkey. Like in previous issue, not everything that politicians say should be treated seriously. It is sometimes more important where and whom a politician says something, than what he says.

- Then, the following question: is the current leadership of Armenia ready for real concessions in the resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and if yes, how can these concessions be perceived by the Armenian population?

- It depends on what you imply by saying "real" concessions. The matter is that Azerbaijan and Armenia consider different things to be real. If you imply the so called "wide autonomy", certainly no Armenian President will have a card blanche for such concessions.

- And the last question: who would win and who would lose from establishment of peace and good neighbor relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the result of the settlement of the Karabakh conflict?

- "Settlement" is quite an unclear term. By saying "settlement" Armenia and Azerbaijan imply different variants of fixation of their victory and no one is ready to give something in reality.

If we suggest for a second that there is no external world and there were only Armenia and Azerbaijan in a can, no talks would be possible.

The process, which is ongoing today, is also difficult to be called a search of compromise. Searches are senseless, because there are 3-3.5 variants and all are aware of them. The sides use talks as a tool for victory by way of peace. It means that "settlement" means nothing, in fact.

/Day.Az/