MENSOIAN: BUSINESS AS USUAL AT 26 BAGHRAMIAN AVENUE
By Michael Mensoian // September 25, 2013
If anything, Raffi Hovanissian should be commended for entering the
political wars again. Unfortunately, little has changed during the
intervening months since the presidential election in February 2013.
The opposition political parties are still committed to a
let’s-wait-and-see-what-happens attitude. Raffi’s announced plan to
travel the length and breadth of Armenia engaging the electorate to
tap into the palpable discontent that has been festering for years is
a gambit he used previously. As head of the Zharangutyun (Heritage)
Party Raffi seeks to position himself asthe leader of the opposition.
Nothing wrong with that considering the fact that no one has come
forward to fill the leadership vacuum to challenge the administration.
Raffi has decided to accept this role. Although the leaders of the
other opposition political parties are adverse to openly and actively
taking on President Sarkisian, it is equally obvious that they will
not buy into a situation that anoints Raffi as leader. Secondly, Raffi
has yet to define what he is offering the Armenian people when he
refers to the need for change and how this change will occur. He has
already said that a new situation will exist in Armenia by September
23 (2013). It would be better if he refrained from such declarations
that only lessen confidence in his ability to lead when they remain
unfulfilled. The Armenian electorate is not only skeptical, but
cynical when it comes to placing their trust in whoever seeks to lead
them. It is a tough barrier that has been created over time by the
failure of opposition leaders to deliver. It is a barrier that has to
be penetrated before any leader can claim support from a politically
meaningful cross section of the electorate.
Changing the existing form of government is no easy task. It
requires more than cosmetic “nips and tucks,” but a fundamental
restructuring of how government serves the people. It demands the
destruction of the oligarchic system, the antithesis of a democracy,
that has stifled individual opportunity and initiative and prevents
Armenia from achieving its full potential as a free and independent
country. Now, sad to say, these 21st century Armenian oligarchs have
replaced the Turkish officials and the rural overlords that plagued
our people at will over a century earlier in the historic provinces
of western Armenia.
In our haste to define the existence of a semblance of popular unrest
(have we already forgotten the miscalculations of some months earlier)
we are elevating the public demonstrations that resulted in the roll
back of the public transportation fare increases in Yerevan, or the
demonstrations against rising tuition cost, or the successful protests
by neighbors that halted construction of an apartment building in
Yerevan that would have adversely affected the quality of the adjacent
homes as evidence of a rising popular demand for change.
Unfortunately the changes these groups sought are redresses of specific
problems. They were not demonstrations against the much broader issues
affecting Armenia such as the lack of socioeconomic and political
opportunity and equality; or the institutional guarantees that protect
basic freedoms; or the equitable administration of justice. These
demonstrations are not directed against the administration, but
against the manifestations of a culture of corruption and arrogance
aided and abetted by the administration.
Demonstrating against the effects of this culture of corruption
and arrogance is, at best, an obtuse and rather ineffective way of
attacking the root cause that generates these problems. Whoever leads
must expand this limited scope problem oriented activism into a much
broader based popular movement that will not hesitate to confront
the root causes.
Unfortunately the opposition has few tactical options to employ to
bring sufficient pressure on the administration to adopt change.
Although civil disobedience can be an effective means to represent
voter discontent, it also has a serious downside. It has the potential
to become destabilizing and sanguinary in its application. This
unwanted development may be induced by the more militant participants
or by a loss of control by the leader or caused by deliberate
provocations by the authorities. As it is, many who have been affected
by the onerous conditions in Armenia have responded by leaving their
homeland in search of opportunity and a better life elsewhere.
Regime change is so easy to say, especially when no one is defining
the meaning of “regime change” or the precise meaning of “need for
change.” Does either or both mean simply replacing the person who
occupies the office of president with no change in the administrative
infrastructure and the culture of corruption and arrogance that has
become institutionalized within Armenia. Or does either or both refer
to the need to restructure the system of governance. If so, how does
whoever leads plan to have this happen?
The adversary the opposition faces is a political leader who is the
president of Armenia and leader of the majority Republican Party that
controls parliament. His party governs the marzes (districts) and,
more significantly, the Yerevan city government. The general officers
and more than likely strategically placed field grade officers in
the military are loyal to him. He has the support of the powerful
oligarchs, who will not easily give up their influence or wealth,
their minions and the avaricious “bottom feeders” who somehow benefit
from the misery that the system inflicts upon the Armenian people.
Unless there is a seismic change in existing relations, he has the
support of the Russian government. And not to be overlooked is the
apathy of a segment of the electorate who, for one or more legitimate
reasons, wish to remain above the fray. This is not being pessimistic,
but a recognition of reality. His recent unilateral decision to have
Armenia join a Russian sponsored “customs union” is ample evidence
of his disdain of the opposition. Simply put, President Sarkisian
controls the apparatus of government which makes him an extremely
formidable adversary to confront.
The current thinking of some is that change can take place long before
President Sarkisian’s term in office is over in 2018. I can say with
certainty that this is an unrealistic assessment of the situation. To
suggest that putting Armenia on the proper tack to achieving a
robust economy and improving the quality of life of its people can
be accomplished in quick time during President Sarkisian’s term in
office is misleading the electorate. It trivializes the systemic
nature of the problem and the Herculean effort required to change
course. A course that has been navigated for some two decades.
The Armenia people are cautious and conservative. They are inured to
difficulties and have yet to arrive at that point where a significant
segment of the electorate will rise up to support a vigorous and
persistent campaign against the administration. This passivity has
inhibited the rise of a meaningful opposition. As stated earlier, for
some the solution was to leave the land of their birth. However, we
should also consider if a leader exists who will have the strength of
his convictions and the determination to actually mount the proverbial
ramparts as did the legendary Jeanne d’Arcagainst the English and who
would be able to brave the counteroffensive that would be unleashed
against him.
The very last thing Armenia needs is to permanently fracture the
loyalty of the population. We are one people and one country. It is a
catch 22 situation that the opposition faces in seeking change. Change
is absolutely necessary, but it must come from a careful harnessing
of popular support from the concerned civilians and the various
groups of activists. It requires a broad base of support from various
segments of society and its objectives and methodology must be geared
to encouraging people as well as opposition political leaders to
participate.
That stage where a popular uprising against the existing administration
and power structure is imminent has yet to be reached.
And it doesn’t seem likely that it will be reached during President
Sarkisian’s term of office. Given the many and diverse problems and
issues facing the Armenian electorate, it is telling that the political
parties remain unable to join forces in response to the needs of the
Armenian people. Surely there must be common ground on some issues
that would encourage cooperation. If this required display of unity
cannot be accomplished, please let us not delude ourselves into
believing we can mount a successful opposition movement that will
lead to a restructuring of government where opportunity, equality,
freedom and justice will apply to all Armenians. Failing this,
the only viable alternative would be for the opposition parties to
devise a strategy to mitigate the debilitating effects of President
Sarkisian’s final term in office.
Related Articles:
Mensoian: ‘Medz Hayrik,’ Why Are You So Sad? Mensoian: Do Political
Parties Have a Duty to Participate? Can Raffi Hovannisian Lead
Our People to ‘The Promised Land’? Mensoian: Are We Going from
Barev-olution to Mnak Barov-olution?
About Michael Mensoian
Michael Mensoian, J.D./Ph.D, is professor emeritus in Middle East
and political geography at the University of Massachusetts, Boston,
and a retired major in the U.S. army. He writes regularly for the
Armenian Weekly. More Posts
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/09/25/mensoian-business-as-usual-at-26-baghramian-avenue/