WHEN POLITICAL REGIME CHANGES
Lragir.am
25/12/09
They often say that the quality of a political regime (system) depends
directly on the cultural level present within the frames of the
regime. We have to admit this thought is logic. Hardly anyone can
dispute the idea that a dictatorial regime is impossible to appear in
a society where the greater part known its rights and is ready to
defend them where respect towards the rights of other is a tradition.
Even if we assume that within such a community, some dictators, with
the help of lies, manage to get involved into the governmental system,
so they will be unable to resist there a single day. First, they will
not find necessary human resources to remain there. People will not
obey them in general by the simple reason that a tradition that they
have to live in accordance with some rational and useful rules is
formed among them. People’s mode of life, their usages are impossible
to be changed in one instant if they are pleasant for people and
proved their effectiveness in different situations of the life.
This means that a non-democratic regime may be formed only in case
within the public there are favorable conditions for its formation.
But it is interesting that this idea is often used as an argument to
justify corrupt authorities. Sometimes, expressions such as `the
authorities are bad because the society is bad, so let it leave the
government alone. If people living in a non-democratic country want
positive changes, let them change themselves’ is heard.
But does this mean that the non-democratic regime will just disappear
when the society is changed? And in general, how can we know if the
society is changed or not? And when they say the society is to be
change, do they mean the whole society or just a part of it?
First let us note that as the historical experience shows a whole
society cannot change altogether. It has never occurred that all the
people of a country stand up for the elimination of autocracy or
establishment of communistic orders etc. The society has always been
divided in supporters and rivals (by the way, we cannot say that
changes happen only when the majority supports them). So, in this
case, by saying `society’, we do not have to understand the whole
society but a part of it.
Second, in our opinion, the authoritarian regime may change by itself
only in one case – when the government of that regime will belong to
that part of the society which wants changes. But it is little
possible because, as Lord Acton has repeatedly said, `Any power ruins,
and absolute power ruins absolutely’. The leadership of an
authoritarian regime represents the sphere of the society which gets
use of the advantages procured by the government. Consequently, it is
logic that the leadership of the above-mentioned power will not belong
to the part of the society matured for quality changes.
Hence, the authoritarian regime can hardly change by its initiative
and for the change of the power, the change of concrete persons and
groups will be needed. And this may become possible only when the
part of the society ready for changes will unite forming an
organization (formal or informal) which will not obey to the not
written rules of the authoritarian and criminal regime. This will
prove that the very part of the society, regardless what part of the
society it is, changed its quality and really does not deserve its
authoritarian rulers and has rights to form a democratic regime. And
the creation of the latter in this case is a matter of `techniques’.
EDGAR VARDANYAN