To #Maidan or not to #Maidan

To #Maidan or not to #Maidan: This is the question that the #ElectricYerevan activists are being unwillingly forced to answer.

Over the last 2 weeks, public discontent over a shady decision to yet-again raise the price of electricity, this time by a whopping 20% upon the request of the Kremlin-owned company, Inter RAO, has culminated into 6 days of round-the-clock popular protests attracting as many as 20 000 people, including a sit in on Baghramyan St, one of the city’s main arteries.

The protesters, identified by the trending Twitter hasthag #ElectricYerevan, were angry over the increasingly obvious lack of sovereignty over the country’s energy distribution networks, the majority of which have overwhelmingly been sold to state-run companies in Russia. The claim that the price increase was to cover a $50million deficit supposedly caused by the depreciated Dram further raised eyebrows, as people asked how it was possible for an energy distribution monopoly to run a deficit.

Though this protest is largely understood in Armenia to be the result of a deep-rooted anger at the State for failing to produce the right socio-economic circumstances for growth, while doing little to tackle corruption, the fact that the protesters have accused both their own government as well as Russian involvement by association (electricity distribution being in the hands of a Russian state-owned firm) has lead to a swift condemnation of the movement by the Russian Duma, which wasted no time in branding it an “Armenian Maidan” which needed to be suppressed at all costs.

Putin_Armenia_fascism

“How to make Armenia look Fascist”

This call was further echoed by Russian state-owned media that was present on the scene, who stipulated that US, or western NGOs are responsible for the unrest; implying that the protesters formed a sort of 5th column in a new front of a revived cold-war existing only in the minds of Kremlin strategists. The association with Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution was also debated by Ukrainian and Western news outlets.

As the protesters woke up to hear Russian media accusing them of “orchestrating another Maidan”, they were naturally incensed, producing an even greater backlash against Russian news outlets for portraying their struggle against corruption in the energy sector as part of a western-sponsored anti-Russian conspiracy. This anger, of course, was seen as a validation by the same Russian Press which had made the initial accusation.

In this video; a protester explains to the Russian Journalist why they are truly protesting, and why their coverage is misleading. She was reportedly fired after this video aired.

Over the past 3 days, as the protest’s growing momentum has continued to attract international media attention, the Armenian people’s struggle is increasingly being debated far way from the country’s borders. The protesters themselves are finding their struggle for accountability in energy distribution unwillingly dragged into a wider geopolitical conflict; which many of them care little about. Already, #ElectricYerevan has been joined by hashtags such as #ArmenianMaidan and #ElectroMaidan on social media sites; despite the fact that neither of the two are ever used by the activists themselves.

Russian Journalist being schooled on journalism ethics

Russian Journalist being schooled on journalism ethics

This fear of being swallowed into a larger conflict is understandable. With the recent events in Ukraine still looming over everyone’s heads, the protesters have gone through great lengths to convince the Kremlin that this isn’t a Maidan, that this is protest’s goals are unique.

Obvious similarities:

One point voiced by the protesters on Baghramyan Street was that, unlike the Ukrainian Maidan Revolution, which was fought over the country’s geopolitical direction, and resulted in hundreds of deaths; this protest, by contrast, was apolitical, non-violent, aimed at fighting rampant corruption and the lack of accountability in the country; but with one demand: to stop the electricity price hike.

Incidentally, most of the protesters interviewed on Kyiv’s Maidan Square, stated the exact same reasons for their own struggle: a dissatisfaction with the rampant corruption of the Yanukovych regime, Illegitimacy, and the lack of rule of law. Just like in Yerevan, the Maidan protesters had initially peacefully assembled, and, just like #electricyerevan, had only 1 demand: resume economic talks with the EU. It’s only when the world woke up in the morning to the shocking news that the government had sent in the Berkut to violently clear out the protestors, that people of all political convictions, regardless of views on the West or Russia joined in to protest government repression. Successive violent attempts against the protestors and well documented Kremlin  involvement helped turn public opinion against the government, and Russia’s foreign policy, and only then, were the first calls for revolution being made.

President Sargsyan was well aware of this the morning when public outcry over his brutal dispersion of the Baghramyan protestors reached his ears, and is hopefully doing everything in his power to ensure that, like in Ukraine, government overreaction doesn’t lead to a Maidan repeat. The Maidan protesters, and the #ElectricYerevan protesters have both created unique countercultures which should be observed in their own right. The common denominator, however, has been the Kremlin’s reaction. Thus, one could argue that Armenia’s and Ukraine’s struggles are similar insofar as any nation’s struggle against corruption would invariably develop along similar lines.

Not exactly the same though:

This isn’t to say, however, that #ElectricYerevan doesn’t genuinely have its differences. To begin with, the very idea of lumping all forms of public discontent together (be it as a CIA conspiracy, or as a seemingly trending call for liberal-democracy), is very dangerous because it tends to gloss over the very real domestic tensions and concerns that motivate the protesters in favor of citing regional trends which may or may not be there, as well removing from the unique character of both protests. #ElectricYerevan, unlike the Maidan, hasn’t seen a rise in leadership of any particular individual, or political party; extremist parties have been denied centre stage, and unlike in Kyiv, the protest lacks a clear geopolitical direction (with some EU-flag weaving members of the “Honourable Fatherland” faction having been shoved out) 

Armenians’ desire to distance themselves from the Maidan movement brings to mind an important question: should the Armenian protesters really reject the Maidan association?  By going too far in distancing themselves from the Maidan protests, the #ElectricYerevan activists risk banalising their own movement for 4 reasons:

1- Implicitly endorsing the Kremlin view on the events of 2014-15 in Ukraine as a violent, Russophobic coup-d’etat:

The only reason why #ElectricMaidan activists feel the necessity for distancing themselves from any association with the #Maidan Revolution of 2014 is because of a decade-long Kremlin-supported witch hunt for “Colour Revolutions”. In the wake of the Ukrainian Revolution, the Kremlin’s propagandists have done such a thorough job of of permeating the notion of the Maidan as a bloody fascist coup to its television audience, that even one of the older protesters on Baghramyan street was suspicious about a rumoured Prague-based “Maidan exporting cell”, which she claimed was planning to hijack the #ElectricYerevan movement. By negating any association, protesters essentially accept the Kremlin-towed line that this view is a correct one. 

2- Implying that the protesters somehow have to justify themselves to the Kremlin:

In trying to convince the Kremlin’s media apparatus that what is happening on the streets of Armenia’s major cities is not another Maidan, the protesters are essentially trying to appease potentially vengeful Russian authorities. Seeing as how these protests are happening in the sovereign, and independent Republic of Armenia; it is idiotic to have to give any explanation to the leaders of a foreign country, for what is essentially a domestic struggle.

3- the more they deny resemblance, the more it is forced upon them:

Ukrainian Maidan participants found themselves assaulted with accusations, speculations and insinuations by the Kremlin’s propaganda machine that they are, or at the very least were motivated by fascist ideals. This in turn helped shift the focus from the real issues on the ground, to debates nebulous fascist influences. Similarly, the more Armenian protesters try to deny any resemblance with the Maidan revolution; the attention is drawn to this view. Furthermore, depending on how local authorities, or the Kremlin react, any counter reaction by the demonstrators will inevitably resonate with Maidan-watchers. 

4- It sets a predetermined path and fate for this movement

Accepting or rejecting similarities with the Maidan essentially sets the 2014 Maidan revolution as the standard for any form of civil unrest in any post-soviet country. Protesters now have to choose between two camps pre-determined camps; which limits the creativity, and demands of their respective movements. Protests, revolutions, or any other sort of civil-society movements need to be analyzed individually.

The short answer to the question “Is #ElectricYerevan another #Maidan?” is NO: #ElectricYerevan is a completely homegrown Armenian popular movement, born out of a real feeling of disenfranchisement, and with a specific set of demands unique to Armenia’s situation. This, however, doesn’t mean that there aren’t any similarities between the two movements (and indeed most movements). The long answer, however, depends on how the Armenian authorities, and how the Kremlin react to these protesters. Ultimately, the real answer is: It doesn’t matter.  Armenians do not, and should not, owe any explanation for their protest movement to the Kremlin, or any outside parties.

Advertisements

Pension Wars

Image

Armenia has been experiencing a rise in political activity in the last few years. The most recent of which has been the wide scale public outcry over the government’s new pension reform plan, embodied by the ‘dem em’ (we oppose) movement. Over the past several months, thousands of Armenians, mostly young professionals, some of whom are from the IT sector, have been staging routine mass protests against the USAID-backed reforms which went into effect on the 1st of January 2014 as part of legislation enacted in 2010. Under this new pension reform law, all employed persons born after 1973 would be required to pay an extra five to ten percent of their salaries to a government-approved selection of private fund management firms. The government argues that this is a necessary measure due to the need to reduce government expenditures as the country struggles with the impending budgetary burden of population aging amongst other constraints. With the impending economic slowdown over the next two years, the government has understood the necessity of being careful with budgetary funds and the previous entirely public pension system would be too costly.  The opposition to this reform may seem perplexing to outside observers, as pension privatisation has been hailed as a successful policy for dealing with similar budgetary problems that governments have in the developed world. The blog, “the Armenian Economist” notes that countries with similar pension packages include Australia, Chile, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, and Switzerland.

Despite enjoying the backing for the reform of a number of economists, and the overt support of the US ambassador John Heffern, opponents, discontent over the mandatory element of the reform, have been suspicious of the package. They argue that the unconstitutional measure would be seen as an extra form of taxation on a labour force which is already underpaid, and over taxed, and would ultimately lead to an increase in emigration particularly within the IT sector, which is dominated by highly paid (by armenian standards), highly skilled young professionals who would be tempted to pursue careers elsewhere.

Since the reforms have been hailed as both necessary and competent, why have they generated so much controversy? There are a few things that are worth noting:

It’s about being overtaxed:

Currently, roughly 26% of an Armenian worker’s salary goes to paying various taxes, including their public pension funds. In a country where the average income is less than 250 EUR a month, this means that workers are left with just over 180 EUR to cover monthly expenses. Removing another 5 to 10% of their salaries would leave them with just 170 EUR per month. This in a city where the recommended minimum monthly expenses for one person is roughly 400 EUR.

Its about freedom of choice:

One of the biggest issues of contention here is that the new pension plans are mandatory, and citizens are unable to choose how it is managed. The government has responded to concerns by pointing out that they cannot expect the population to manage their own pensions as they would be left with nothing after retirement, and tried to comfort opponents by mentioning that the  private pension funds will be managed by French “Amundi” and German “Talanx” companies. The Constitutional Court, however, has sided with the protesters on the matter.  It should be noted, however, that even in pension systems which are said to not be mandatory, the actual amount of choice is quite trivial anyway.

It’s about mistrust for the State:

Many Armenians can still recall how much of the life savings which they had collected over many years vanished overnight with the collapse of the USSR, and again a few years later, when the government illegally dipped into the nation’s pension funds to finance new projects. Furthermore, armenians have grown increasingly cynical of incessant government promesses with seemingly more sinister intentions, such as the recent speeding cameras, bus fare increases, city centre parking system, etc. The government, in response has done very little to show genuine will to help foster better dialogue with civil society over such issues, conducting closed-door meetings, and so on.

It’s a vote of non-confidence in the Government:

One aspect of this movement which could puzzle outside observers is the lack of actual criticism of the reform itself. A recent study conducted by masters students at the American University of Armenia’s School of Humanities revealed that many of those frustrated were ready to accept the reform’s implementation if it had been proposed by any government other than the present one. In this sense, the current protests are part of a wider wave of protest against the Republican government by an increasingly vocal, and competent opposition movement.

As Initial discontent has since grown into a fully fledged movement, it has noticably attracted and united all four non-governmental parties: the opposition the Heritage party, Armenian National Congress, ARF- Dashnaksutyun and the non-ruling Prosperous Armenia Party towards the cause. Initially unorganised and chaotic discontent eventually transformed into a clear list of demands. The protesters claimed that they would not back down until the reform package was submitted to the constitutional court for evaluation, repeal said laws, and for the prime minister, Tigran Sargsyan to resign.

Amid the backdrop of almost daily protests (which include a rap song)  the Constitutional Court declared, on April 2nd, that certain elements of the reform package were indeed anti-constitutional, and ordered the parliament to reconsider it. Despite this, mandatory inputs into the new pension plans, which had automatically started on January 1st continued, prompting a continuation of public protests.

Since then, the Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan has resigned, replaced by notorious oligarch Hovik Abrahamyan (known colloquially as ‘mook’), who has declared his intention to work with the professionals to reform the package. At the time of writing, the National Assembly has approved a new bill on pension reform, after the Court gave them until the end of september to bring it into conformity with the constitution. The new prime minister, Hovik Abrahamyan, has publicly stated that the changes to the reform will make it optional to subscribers. In the meantime, employers are still asked to continue taking 5% of worker’s salaries. Meanwhile, the protests are growing in size and frequency…

Silicon Valley of the Caucasus: Tablet odysseys

The unedited version of this article was published for the Germany-based Armenian current affairs journal “die Armenisch-Deutsche Korrespondenz” in March 2014

Image

Nayiri computers, manufactured in Soviet Armenia

While still a soviet republic, Armenia had garnered a reputation as the USSR’s answer to Silicon Valley. the Republic was a centre for mainframe and industrial computing, electronics, semiconductors, software development and others research and development, as well as production. Indeed, roughly 40% of the Soviet Union’s high tech and military research took place in Yerevan’s top of the line facilities, such as the Mergelian Institute and Microprocessor Institute. In fact, the USSR’s vast array of SAM missiles and ICBM relied on guidance systems designed, developed and manufactured in soviet Armenia in hopes of hitting their intended NATO targets.

Armenia also produced technological innovations for civilian and research use as well. The famous Nairi family of computers was developed at the Yerevan Computer Research and Development Institute in 1964. Other innovations were made in the production of transistors, microcomputers and so on.

The collapse of the Soviet Empire, in tandem with the Shirak Earthquake and the Karbakh War (1989-1994) shook the newly independent republic’s previously highly industrialised economy to its core. Now cut off from its former export markets within the Eastern Block as well as with difficult access to the sea; Armenian firms having appreciated the high value of human resources, turned their attention to software development. The major specialisations include embedded software and semiconductor design, custom software development and outsourcing, financial applications, multimedia design, Internet applications, web development, MIS and system integration. Armenia’s best achievements were in the fields of  semiconductor design software and IP solutions.

Since then, the Information and Communications Technology sector has been one of the fastest growing in the Armenian economy. A unique start-up scene has developed over recent years, which is growing to rival its more famous counterparts in New York, Berlin and the Baltic. Grassroots conventions such as the famed Barcamp IT conventions have already spread to cities outside the capital such as Gyumri and Stepanagert. A number of educational institutions also help secure the next generation of IT specialists. The TUMO Centre for Creative Technologies in Yerevan, for example, with a branch in Dilijan was founded to help teenagers develop their skills in programming, design, robotics and so on. Yerevan is also home to a small number of trendy coworking spaces such as the SaryanTumanyan space catering to a growing number of tech start-ups. The city also hosts a chapter of TEDx.

Innovative home grown projects such as Armenia’s answer to Instagram: Picsart, or other projects such as the virtual whiteboard Voiceboard, the Yerevan-based serviced apartment group ginosi.com or teambuilding app Teamable  have also attained worldwide recognition. The country has also managed to attract international ITC giants, including Microsoft, Synopsis, and Macademia,

ICT has grown at an average of 27% per year. In theory, at least, the Armenian government has made efforts to support this sector by conducting grant competitions for start-ups and R&D efforts in collaboration with the World Bank, the US government funded Enterprise Development and Market Competitiveness project, as well as the Enterprise Incubator Foundation. The Armenian and Indian governments have also collaborated to found the Armenian-Indian Centre for Excellence in ITC. The government has already designated three Tax-Free Zones for IT development in the country: The Mergelyan institute, the Gyumri Technopark and the Vanadzor technopark.

Image

FRM Prime-Minister Tigran Sargsyan and Gyumri Mayor Samvel Balasanyan visit the new Technopark in Gyumri (source: oratert.com)

The first ever, fully-indigenous developed tablet computer, unimaginitively named the ‘ArmTab’ was recently presented to Armenia’s Medvedev-esque Yuppie prime minister Tigran Sargsyan. This new tablet, along with its north-american counterpart, Minno is supposed to have been entirely designed locally, including the software design, operating system, applications and overall tablet design. Though it was speculated that it would be manufactured in China, Vahan Sahakian, the director of Technology and Science Dynamics/Armtab Technologies insists that they will be assembled in Armenia. Critics doubt the need for a new tablet in an already crowded market, and argue that it is just another soviet-style publicity stunt designed to showcase the country’s technological might; but Sahakian insists that the tablet will target the regional markets of Armenia Georgia and Ukraine first, and then get into a world Market. Though the tablet’s technological specifications are not yet available, its 165 EUR asking price should give it a competitive edge on its competition.

Despite overt endorsement of ITC sector development in Armenia, the Government’s actual support remains uneven. High corporate and income taxes, (update: as of April 2014, the Armenian government offers tax breaks to IT start ups)  as well as spotty rule of law hamper the proper growth of the industry. Furthermore, a recent government pension reform is poised to remove an extra 5% of the already squeezed-for-Tax incomes of these skilled professionals; with many of them now considering emigration over what they perceive as being more state ‘punishment’ for their success. (update: As of April 2014, the constitutional court has put this reform on hold, with results pending) Another issue that needs to be addressed is brain-drain amongst Armenia’s IT specialists. Many companies are not having difficulty finding senior IT positions despite high salaries and benifits, because the people necessary to fill these seats are not in the country. This issue should be addressed.

In conclusion; Armenia’s ITC industry shows a lot of promise, and can indeed turn into Armenia’s strategic economic strength if the government learns to nurture its growth instead of hampering it.

What Zaruhi Postandjyan SHOULD have asked…

photocredit: www.pastinfo.am

Zaruhi Postandjyan

Though we have already commented on the absurdity of the Postandjyan-Sargsyan exchange which took place on the floor of PACE earlier this week, the event, and the ensuing scandal continues to divide Armenian society.

Many in the opposition Heritage Party, as well as various people on social networks have praised her actions as a brave challenge to President Sargsyan, while representatives of the ruling Republican Party have slammed her comments as treason, going so far as to call her a Turk or an Azeri. With member of the HHK faction in the National Assembly, Arakel Movsisian (apparently unaware that his own expression of disgust at an inappropriate comment was way more offensive on its own) said: “She went to bed with a Turk,”.

The question at hand was the following: “Have you been to a European casino lately, and — since you are known to the public as a gambler — did you lose 70 million euros ($95 million) there and who paid for your loss?” – Many defended the question as they say it unveiled the president as a target of ridicule, while Postandjyan herself commented to RFE/RL that she tried to ask as many questions as possible in 30 seconds that the Armenian people wanted to ask, but when asked about the origin of the question relating to Sargsyan’s alleged gambling debts, she admitted that it was based on rumours that everyone knew about (in other words, there is no substance).

Assuming, of course, that Postandjyan should have asked any question at all, here is a list of questions we suggest which would have been more effective to her cause, while preserving her diplomatic credibility:

  1. “Mr President, in your speech, you mentioned that under your presidency, civil society in Armenia has become vibrant, where citizens are well aware of their rights. However, over the last month 9 peaceful civil rights activists have been viciously attacked by government-connected thugs, and, despite promises by the Police, no serious investigation has taken place. Can you comment on the development of the Human Rights situation in Armenia?”
  2. “Mr President, you mentioned in your speech that your decision to join the Customs Union was not one forced by Moscow, but a sovereign decision on your part. Since you also mentioned that you proudly believe that you represent the voice of the Armenian people, can you comment on your decision to act unilaterally in that regard (despite constitutional restraints), without consulting the National Assembly or the Armenian People?”
  3. “Mr President, you mentioned that over 4 years of negotiations with the European Union under the framework of the Eastern Partnership Programme, that the government of Armenia has made great strides in modernising the Armenian state to European Standards; a belief that is shared by virtually no one else. Can you please explain to the European Delegates and the Armenian people why Armenia’s fight against corruption, Transparent modernisation and economic liberalisation has been a resounding failure?”
  4. “Mr President, most economic indicators suggest that your financial policies, as well as the grasp of the Oligarchy on the economy are taking Armenia’s already stagnant economy towards another recession, can you explain your rationale for deciding to throw away 4 years of negotiations which would have allowed us to join the World’s largest free-trade zone, and n1 economy, in order for joining the already backward Customs Union?”
  5. “Mr President, despite the fact that you have been warned several times by our European partners that the custom rates of the Moscow-led Customs Union were not compatible with those of the European Free Trade Area, you have insisted on going on the road to Moscow, and yet you still claim that membership in both organisations is possible (despite the contrary) Can you please dispense with the vague statements, and explain to the European Deputies how you see this cooperation with two mutually exclusive organisations possible?”
  6. (assuming she wants to go for a shocking, yet diplomatic statement) “Mr President, You mentioned, on September 21st, that Armenia’s independence is an intrinsic value, yet only two weeks before, you completed a series of actions started by your predecessor, Robert Kocharyan, to sell Armenia’s independence to the Russians. Your party claims to be based on the ideology of “Tseghakron”,  what would you think reaction of the Armenian Freedom FIghter, Garegin Njdeh (the founder of the ideology who fought Russian occupation as much as Ottoman occupation) would be to your actions?”

All of these questions could have been posed in less than 30 seconds, in an eloquent, and intelligible way which would have had the same desired effect of embarrassing Sargsyan, yet with the bonus effect of showing the world that Armenia’s opposition politicians DO possess the qualities to run the country in a more effective manner. Furthermore, by asking pertinent questions related to the pressing topic at hand would demonstrate to the European Partners, that not everyone in the Armenian political community accepts the president’s decision, and that cooperation would be more desirable with the opposition.

Understanding the Armenian world view when dealing with the Artsakh Conflict

Despite the world having witnessed our recent history, we are still asked by International mediators to be reasonable in our demands (our demands to preserve what is left of our nation)

 it would be really nice if, for once, the international community, the Turks and the Azeris would care to understand the Armenian case: We are a nation of people who’s contribution to the world is quite disproportionate to our size, and yet have constantly been marginalised by larger interests, seen as disposable problems, to the point where our plight has even been refered to as “the armenian QUESTION“, as if we were a problem that the world was trying to effortlessly wash its hands of. For most of our recent history, we have been criticised as a nuisance by larger powers in the grand scheme of World Affairs, because we complained about our lands being taken from us, our people murdered, our sovereignty being violated, or culture compromised time and time again. Yet, we have constantly been asked to compromise on these things which we have held dear by the same powers who asked us to sacrifice for the greater good, to appease our aggressive neighbours, or for future compensation.

Today we live in a Republic that is one tenth the size of the state we were legally promised in 1919, which itself was only two thirds the size of the land we have historically lived in; which didn’t bother Stalin who decided to disect us even further.

Different Armenias

 We do not have the luxury of having a Sprachbund stretching from Blugaria to China like our neighbours do, our closest kin have long since been assimilated into other cultures, there is no where else for us to go. We have nothing left to give, and yet we are still being told by the International community that we are being unreasonable, that we must compromise…This is not an irrational call for romantic nationalism, or irredentism, this is a very real, pragmatic issue for us. IT is an issue that intails the very survival of our nation as a relevant, independent state in the modern world. We collectively share the pain of the Azeris who suffered in the early nineties, but it was a necessary pain, Just as the pain of the Indian-born Britons who left for a land of their ancestors that they had never seen, when India received it’s independence.

It should be noted, however, that despite the fact that the Armenian nation has already lost so much, for the sake of peace, the Armenian negotiators at the Kazan conference offered a compromise that was so humiliating for the Armenian side that some of the points have still not been publicly revieled. This very reasonable proposal was turned down by Aliyev. In other words, no matter what we offer, they will still ask for more.

Should Azeri refugees be alloud to return to their homes? Absolutely. Should we allow Azeris free passage through Armenia/Artsakh, as part of a pledge to allow all of mankind the right ot freedom of movement, and dignity they deserve as fellow human beings? Definately. Should we dream of the day where we could one day trade freely with Azerbaijan and look towards eventual regional economic integration? We are more than willing…Yet, to give up even an inch of land for which we have fought and bled for? NEVER.

The post-soviet role of the State in anti-LGBT propaganda legislation

The Armenian Police Department retracted a draft law proposal banning “Propaganda” promoting non-traditional family relationships in Armenia a day after it had been proposed, citing the need to specify certain elements of the bill.

However, much like the NGO bill, the Yerevan beautification project and a host of other “brilliant”, yet far from original ideas, this one seems to be a calque from an identical bill passed in Russia recently. It is rumoured that the Armenian Police are rewriting the bill in order to specify what could be considered “non-traditional” sexual behaviour. We can expect the Armenian government to throroughly research the various sexual positions which will be considered legal and illegal.

The question thus arises, why is the government worried about its citizen’s sex lives?Are there not more important things for governments to legislate? Where does the role of government end? Today, more than ever, the quote “There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation” remains relevant for the citizens of Armenia.

Aside from the obvious consequences of a useless bill in a country where LGBT rights are often regarded as a non-issue, especially considering the many pressing issues, why would such a bill be drafted at all? what do you think? The answer, however, remains clear: Good government = less government.