A large number of people who have reservations about the candidacy of the founding President of the Republic say that in order to return to politics and receive the vote of the people, Levon Ter-Petrosyan must ask for forgiveness.

This is one of the prevailing clichés that people repeat constantly - often without entertaining any doubt as to the correctness and fairness of what they say. In other words, those who hold this view want Ter-Petrosyan to admit the dubious facts that have been circulated by his political opponents over the last fifteen years without lifting a finger to determine their objective and subjective sides. 

But it is all very clear. Ter-Petrosyan and his government can be held responsible for the dark and cold years if one regards these years outside the context of war, blockades, and the collapse of the economy of a republic that had been a part of the Soviet Union. The first president can also be held responsible for poverty and unemployment, if one doesn’t take into consideration that after gaining independence through a nation-wide referendum, Armenia had to create its economy afresh and at the same time to undergo the transition from planned to market economy. 

The most popular accusation is connected to the so-called “fuel oil case” which became a subject of speculation after the 1998 change of government but has never been disclosed. The public has never found out what the “fuel oil case” was, or what the investigation revealed. And today, instead of calling the present government to account, many people keep unjustly imputing this “dark story” to the former government. 

Equally popular is the issue of his “entourage”, and even today many people are ready to vote for Ter-Petrosyan provided that he renounces or estranges himself from his former entourage. This accusation was put into circulation in the early years of independence mainly by the Soviet nomenklatura. Those who had led the Communist party and state apparatus had lost their positions due to a concatenation of circumstances and, unable to find a place in the new times and the new reality, they took revenge upon the “new people” by smearing them. 

In fact, Ter-Petrosyan faced an inconceivably difficult choice. On one side were the representatives of the Soviet administrative system; on the other were people who had manifested certain organizational skills during the independence movement. The representatives of the Soviet administrative system, though they had wide experience, were removed from the market economy just taking shape, and the new people, though they were bearers of the idea of a liberal economy, lacked experience in management. Nevertheless, Ter-Petrosyan succeeded in forming a team whose members in parallel to learning managerial skills were able to make quite difficult and responsible decisions during the hardest years for Armenia. 

One should also keep in mind that the government had new structures that had never existed in Armenia, such as, for example, the customs department, the tax administration, the ministry of defense, the ministry of economy (with completely different tasks and functions than Soviet Armenia’s ministry of industry had had), and the ministry of foreign affairs, which had nothing to do with the pro forma structure with the same name that had existed before. 

It was quite a difficult task for the newly independent Armenia to transform the Armenian branch of the Soviet KGB into the national security agency. Another difficult task was opening embassies and finding diplomats, who had to learn the niceties of the profession under very complex circumstances as well. 

In this situation Ter-Petrosyan succeeded in putting together a team that consisted of old and new personnel. Of former Soviet leaders, Vladimir Movsisyan (former first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Armenia), Gagik Harutyunyan (former head of a department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party), Hranush Hakobyan (former first secretary of the Komsomol of Armenia), Artashes Tumanyan (former secretary of a regional committee of the Communist Party), Husik Harutyunyan (former minister of interior of Soviet Armenia), Karlos Ghazaryan, Suren Abrahamyan (former high level officials of the interior ministry of Soviet Armenia) and others worked for his government. 

There were other officials as well who were not affiliated with the ruling Armenian National Movement-Vardges Gnuni (minister of education and science), Hakob Movses (minister of culture), Felix Pirumyan (construction minister), Gagik Martirosyan (construction minister and later minister of energy), Ara Babloyan (minister of health), Artashes Petrosyan (minister of education and science) and others. 

Within the same team were others who did represent the ANM - Hrant Bagratyan (prime minister), Vazgen Sargsyan (minister of defense), chairman of the National Democratic Union Vazgen Manukyan (minister of defense), Vano Siradeghyan (interior minister, mayor of Yerevan), David Shahnazaryan (head of the national security service), Serzh Sargsyan (minister of the interior and national security), Yerjanik Abgaryan (head of the customs department), Bagrat Asatryan (chairman of the central bank), Levon Barkhudaryan (minister of finance), Vahan Papazyan and Alexander Arzumanyan (ministers of foreign affairs) and others. 

This was Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s entourage, the political team of his government. After the 1998 change of government, despite the never-ending legends composed about the criminal activity of people mentioned or not mentioned here, none of them was prosecuted by the current government, no charges were brought, no trials were conducted.

The only exception was Vano Siradeghyan, and the only witness (who was also the perpetrator of the crime he was witness to) in the case fabricated against Siradeghyan was set free before the end of his sentence after Siradeghyan left the country and made head of one of Robert Kocharyan’s regional election offices. 

It is unnecessary within the space of one article to talk about all the important work done in the establishment of the state by those individuals. Suffice it to say that from 1991 to1998 Armenia managed to avoid any political upheavals and the economic hardships were overcome not by situational decisions but through fundamental reforms. 

The opponents of that government consider a deadly sin the so-called plunder of the industrial enterprises. I will leave to the current government’s conscience the fact that no facts have ever come to light in “the plunder case”. I will only say that I had many opportunities to visit the establishments that comprised the lists of “plundered enterprises” and saw no signs of plunder. Besides, as Hrant Bagratyan, who worked as prime minister in Ter-Petrosyan’s government, explains, the privatization of the large industrial enterprises began after 1998 and before that, only trade and service establishments were privatized. 

Those who insist that before returning to politics Ter-Petrosyan must ask for forgiveness from the people are not only refusing to remember the past, to compare or confront the facts, but also have not understood the moral value of his resignation. A leadership mired in vice and crime never resigns voluntarily. (Can you imagine the voluntary resignation of the current regime?)It does not resign voluntarily, and it certainly does not for forgiveness without being asked to by the “skeptical masses”. To illustrate what I am saying, it is enough to quote the last sentence of Ter-Petrosyan’s resignation speech: “If I have done anything good, I do not expect your gratitude; for what I have not done and for my mistakes, I ask for your forgiveness.” (Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, February 4, 1998). 

The betrayal of the interests of Artsakh - the most significant of the deadly sins - remains. The best refutation of this is Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s intention to return to the political arena. A person who had had it in mind to betray the interests of Artsakh would have considered the 1998 resignation a salvation and would have locked himself up in the house of the ex-president and would never seek to shoulder the heavy burden of the conflict settlement, a burden that the political figures who demanded his resignation in 1998 have not been able to bear for ten years now.