The debates that were reflected on media platforms mostly focused on the issues of education, the right to deferral, social justice, corruption loopholes, the healthcare system, security and considerably less on issues of democratic freedoms. The justicifcations proposed were often inversely proportional after the following scheme: “I accept/I do not accept, it will have an adverse impact/it will not have an adverse impact, it will contribute/it will not contribute”.
The examples below are from among those sets of answers.
- Pro – The change regarding the right to referral will raise the educational level of the higher educational institutions, since “only those who want to have a higher education will enroll in higher educational institutions, and not those who make use of the educational opportunity to evade the army”.
- Contra– “In fact, deferral is granted to those students who will serve as officers after graduation. That is to say, they are not going to contribute to the development of education and science. The consequences stemming from the bill will be a sharp decline of motivation to study, a reduction in the number of those who enroll in universities, emigration of schoolboys, elimination of motivation to engage in scientific activity and stay in ”
- Pro – The law will contribute to a situation where “those who are really willing to do science will engage in science. There are examples of young men continuing both their education and their scientific research.” “Only 12 – 15% of those who received a scientific degree in Armenia continued their research activities. This is not in line with any international ”
- Contra – The law will be a threat to the development of science, since “no appropriate analysis or expert opinion has been provided to prove that people return from the army and study better”, “The army changes people’s outlooks and after service that they do not want to continue their education,” “The two-year break undermines the continuity of education which is especially important in natural sciences”, “Giving an irreparable blow to the scientific thought and innovation, it will raise serious suspicions with regard to the possibility and prospects of having modern economy, education, healthcare, and defense systems in the reasonable ”
- Pro – The law will eliminate the injustice in one aspect since because of half a point difference one has to join the army, whereas the other continues his education at the university.
- Contra – “It is possible to ensure justice without this law, you should not ensure justice starting from the military service, it is ”
- Pro– “Everyone should serve in the army, and this is the way to restore ”
- Contra – “The consequences are unpredictable, I do not agree to the claim that the provision is targeting the restoration of social justice. This is a bill that will lead to social polarization under the slogan of social justice,” “This law does not provide any tool to ensure equality in the army. They could ensure justice without that law, if the desire were there, and tomorrow that justice is not going to be there if there is no will for ”
- Pro – The law and the change in the right to deferral will contribute to blocking the corruption loopholes, “We reduce corruption risks maintaining social justice. One law is enforced for ”
- Contra – The change in the right to deferral “will create new corruption risks in the areas of healthcare and defense,” “If there is a problem with corruption in education sphere,
why is it not solved within the same sphere, but by means of modifying the deferral system?” “The problem will be moved to another sphere – the medical and social committees, and all of a suddenit will turn out that some individuals who are healthy, have had an “age-long” diseases and will be withdrawn from military service: this is an unacceptable approach.”
- Pro – “From now on the procedures for medical checkups and tests, as well as the list of diseases that are contradictory to military service, will be approved by a governmental decree instead of the procedure that is enforced currently – through the approval of the Minister of ”
- Contra – “The number of those who have military service deferred on medical grounds is huge, but since it is difficult to struggle there, problems arise, applicants are many, and a lot of internal corruption risks arise, hence they have taken another ”
- Pro – The law cannot contribute to emigration, “Absolutely not, because a very small segment of the society enjoys deferral, the rest of the people are covered by the mandatory term of service. Hence, I do not think that the revision of the legislation will be a significant trigger for additional emigration ”
- Contra – The launched process is already triggering emigration, which is a serious cause to feel worried. This law will bring about a larger wave of emigration, “The thing is that abolishing the right to deferral on education grounds which was a ‘loophole’ for many citizens to evade military service, may open up new doors to many for evading it, namely by refusing RA citizenship and becoming a citizen of another country.” “I also work as a teacher, and every September 1st I am sad to see that the parents of sons leave Armenia together with their children. It would be better for the officials to come out of their offices and interact with ”
- Pro– “The new mechanisms and regulations will maximally contribute to ensuring proper defense, and effective management and control of the armed ”
- Contra – “Only half of the losses in our army are caused of enemy’s actions, in the remaining cases we are dealing with inefficient management, consequences of non- statutory relations. The probability of war is inversely proportional to the efficiency of governance in Armenia. The worse the governance is, the higher the probability of”
- Pro – “If the country is not defended, it does not matter how many scientists there are in the country. It is of no value at all. First we need to think about ”
- Contra – “The arms should be the last resort, and should follow the power of knowledge, economic security, effective diplomacy, when these aspects are weak, the only thing left is ”
- Pro – “All the changes have only one end goal: to reinforce are defence capacity, to
improve the mechanisms of restraining the enemy, and to enhance the level of legal and social security of the military servicemen.”
- Contra – “But unfortunately, the reinforcement of the army does not have to do with
the introduction of new technologies, but rather the increase in the numbers of servicemen, which is dangerous by itself.”
- Pro– “Those who have deferred the military service on legal grounds should know clearly what they are supposed to do in the case of war. It has nothing to do with militarization.”
- Contra– “This law makes the society and the country even more militarized,” “When the army and the police are top priorities in our country, one can see to what kind of a society the authorities want to build. If we want Armenia to become an Israel, you should not forget that the most important component of Israel is democracy, which you violate under the disguise of your fake patriotic ”