By Ruzanna Grigoryan

Yerevan Mayor Taron Margaryan recently made a number of public statements that give rise to a number of various responses.

First, in regard to the sit-down   outside the Yerevan Municipality where protestors demanded the dismissal of Transport Department head Henrik Navasardyan and Yerevan Trans Ltd Director Misak Hambardzoumyan, Mayor Margaryan declared that the demand was merely the “wish of 3-4 people” and that the public mostly didn’t support the demand.

In addition, Margaryan proved that a review of his decision to raise transit fares depended not on large-scale wave of protest and civil disobedience, but rather on meetings with a group of students and organizations raising the issue.

It is interesting that the mayor is speaking not in terms of the legal basis of the demand to fire the two officials, but on the basis of the number of citizens raising their voices in protest. Even the arguments of one individual regarding illegality should have been sufficient for this issue to be examined.

On the contrary, the mayor has shown that he and the system he represents don’t operate within the field of legality, but rather in one of power, violence and pressure. If the public at large cannot produce real physical pressure in adequate numbers, then there is no corresponding review of issues and resolutions, even if they possess substantive legal arguments.

We can thus state that the mayor, given his pronouncement, in fact represents the true essence of the perceptions of the authorities, where issues are resolved “on the street” according to accepted practice and those resolving issues are the “good old boys” of the neighbourhood; i.e. those enjoying the backing of higher-ups.

In other words, the mayor is saying that if enough people come out in the streets against him, he just might retreat on the matter. The mayor, in essence, is saying - “I don’t really care about your legal arguments.”

This is the reason why it’s so difficult for Margaryan, a mayor who operates according to such principles, to accept and confess that he has been forced to suspend a decision he has taken due to civil disobedience and a wave of public protest.

For Margaryan to do so, in the context of resolving neighbourhood issues, would mean a loss of face, that he made a mistake, that he displayed weakness.

Given this, Margaryan had to locate “representatives of the people” petitioning him with a request. And these individuals were found, in the form of a puzzling group of students. And the mayor, in turn, as if looking favourably on their request from on high, decided to cut the transit fares. If the current authorities operated in the field of legality, and not according to the rules of the “street”, then perhaps the mayor would be free of such fears.

In the same context of resolving issues according to “the rules of the street”, incidents occurred during the protest actions about the price hikes when officials from the municipality and the route owners they “sponsor” showed up at bus stops and used thug-like tactics in an attempt to intimidate protest participants. However, they failed to get their way and eventually disappeared from sight.

During the past few years individuals have come forth from within the ranks of the public who are beyond the control of the authorities. They are people who act based on the supremacy of the law and according to new civic values. They are people for whom not bowing down to illegal decisions comes naturally.

This sector of society, in all likelihood, will become a serious headache for those in power.

The powers that be now face a real dilemma. In order to regain a semblance of control regarding these qualitatively new “wild card” elements, the authorities must either transform themselves and actually govern in the interest of civil society and civic rights, or else they must leave the scene entirely.