ACNIS reView

The collective mind of Armenia is in a political and even cultural crisis. Public consciousness rejects the Old, but has not reached an agreement on the New. Rejection of the old, the need for revolution is defended not only by conventional revolutionaries, but also by those people who in one way or another were related to the former authorities, that is, conventional counter-revolutionaries. “Old Armenia” has been left without an owner, few are trying to protect it, but the problem of “New Armenia” is also complicated and unclear. What does “New Armenia” mean? There is no answer. The impression is that not only the “Old Armenia” has been left without an owner, but also the “New” one.

This is an unprecedented phenomenon, the society welcomed the revolution, even many “counter-revolutionaries”, but what was the essence of the revolution, what we are changing, no one has clearly formulated. This uncertainty separates not only people and groups pursuing specific political interests, but also those who just want the progress of the country. Ideological emptiness has started to cause fears and expectations of chaos among people. As is known, fear is a consequence of uncertainty.

The problem of Amulsar has divided the “revolutionaries”, and the development of the economy and the fulfillment of international obligations have been met with resistance by environmentalists. The Istanbul Convention also threatens to split the “My Step” alliance. Transitional justice and vetting similarly have an uncertain future. All these are worldview landmarks, regarding which there is no unity in “New Armenia”.

Uncertainty has another name: crisis, stop of thoughts and ideas. “Crisis” is the Armenian version of “crisis”, however, unlike “crisis”, when studying the origin of the word “crisis”, another layer of the phenomenon, another view emerges. “Crisis” in Greek means “κρισις”, “coup”, “change” or “turning stage” and is derived from the verb κρίνω, which means “decide”, “choose”, and only later acquired a negative tone. Apparently, the following was taken into account. when making a “decision” is delayed, it brings negative consequences.

In other words, the crisis is a stage of changes, a sharp turn in life, when it is no longer possible to live in the old way, and there is a need to make turning decisions, to change the rules of life. In the current period of Armenia, we can talk about political, social, economic and psychological crises, when in all these spheres, changes in relations, behavior and thinking should be made, and if we make the issue more radical, then the problem of building a new culture and a new civilization should be solved.

The crises affect not only the above-mentioned areas, but also foreign policy issues, because the role of Armenia in the changing world civilization is discussed. It is no coincidence that, in addition to ecological problems, for example, Amulsar, the Istanbul Convention has also become a serious challenge, that is, a civilizational problem has already faced Armenia.

Nikol Pashinyan tries to present the “Armenian revolution” on international platforms as a sharp turn in the country’s life, which also has the significance of an international and civilizational choice (especially during his speech at the UN summit), but when a key agenda is set for Armenia, which the international community considers important, problems arise. Many more such agendas will be put in front of us, for which we are not ready, because the society of Armenia is not oriented in the fundamental issues of civilization. “Rejecting Serzh” is still not enough to build a new society, and neither is the “Armenian revolution”. can be converted into international relations.

The other issue that everyone should be interested in is the quality of the governments that implement value system changes. International experience shows that radical changes are carried out by authoritarian authorities, which in many cases destroy old relations, even in brutal ways, and it is no coincidence that all democratic reforms were brought to life through a “strong hand”. This is the second crucial challenge that Armenia is facing: to realize a revolution of values, but to stay away from authoritarian management methods. However, such a development does not threaten Armenia at all, because it is not clear what we are exchanging for what. When it is not clear to the public what the “strong hand” is for, then no one will tolerate such a thing, and the police cars that appear on the streets of Yerevan do not scare people, but on the contrary, they motivate them more.

The reason for uncertainty and expectations of chaos in Armenia is the subconscious understanding that it is necessary to make decisions that the government is unable to make, and to be honest, it does not even imagine what decisions are expected of it.

Hovhannes Vardanyan