“Science is not a branch of the party.” The political scientist was fired with a bang

The recent dismissal of the director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute found a wide response in the Armenian society, quickly going beyond the scope of an ordinary personnel decision. For many, the move became an alarming indicator of how the relationship between the state and independent science is changing, while others saw it as an attempt to block pain and memory. What is more important in this dismissal: the demand for total loyalty during the pre-election period, the lack of understanding of the principles of academic freedom, or the government’s desire to take control of all public institutions? of the country about the real motivations of the leadership, the limits of the political conjuncture and why the ruling team finally bet on the bureaucratic resource to replace the lost social legitimacy,to VERELQ the director of the Caucasus Institute, a political scientist, told in the interview Alexander Iskandaryan:

Photo: Alexander Iskandaryan, source: RBC (РБК)

VERELQ: It cannot be said that what happened is unprecedented, but the release of the director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute, nevertheless, received a sharp public resonance. What is the sign of this dismissal and, in your opinion, to what extent has it undermined Nikol Pashinyan’s position in society?

Alexander Iskandaryan. The logic of this release, as seen by the ruling team, is quite transparent. As a matter of fact, Pashinyan himself directly announced that and not only him. The essence comes down to the following. if a person is a civil servant and receives a salary from the state, he is obliged to support the political course of the government and has no right to act contrary to its provisions. And in the case of donating a book, apparently, it is required not only not to oppose the government, but also to guess in advance what its position is on this or that issue.

In general, the logic of the authorities is clear, but in this case we are talking about the director of a scientific institution. The Scientific Institute is not a regional department of the “Civil Contract” party. In the academic environment, at least in the part of the world to which our government is oriented, there are such fundamental concepts as academic freedoms. Science develops due to the clash of different views, and a scientist has every right to disagree both with his colleagues and with people far from science.

An understanding of academic freedoms, the right to have one’s own opinion and its diversity is vitally necessary, because without it, science, including public science, simply does not exist. It cannot function in a paradigm where it is required to serve the one true top-down narrative; under such conditions it ceases to be science.

Judging by everything, the authorities do not have this understanding, or at least it disappears during the pre-election period, when such values ​​seem to them to be completely marginal. I’m not inclined to attribute what happened solely to someone’s personal feelings. Of course, the personal factor may be present, but to prove it or to know for sure what the personal motives are there is impossible. Another thing is important. we are dealing with a clear trend that can be seen in many areas.

And now that trend has reached the social sciences, a field where the existence of independent opinion is presupposed from the start. The authorities are trying to introduce an approach, which in science is called “presupposition” (presupposition). when you define the desired outcome in advance and know from the very beginning exactly what you have to prove, adapting to changes in the political conjuncture. Requiring a scientist to work in a strictly defined ideological paradigm shows a deep lack of understanding of the working mechanisms of science, including state-funded science. After all, funding by the state and blindly serving the interests of the government are completely different things.

VERELQ: If we talk about the impact of this incident on the ratings of the government. how will this affect them given the extreme sensitivity of the subject?

Alexander Iskandaryan. You know, it seems to me that this topic is really sensitive, but only in those circles and classes of society, which either will not go to the upcoming elections at all, or if they do, they will definitely not vote for the ruling party.

The government obviously does not bet on Yerevan’s scientific intelligentsia. First of all, in terms of quantity, that capital intelligentsia is not so much to have a decisive influence on the outcome of the vote. Second, the electoral calculation is based on completely different groups of the population. And to what extent the problem of academic freedoms and the attitude towards history concerns the residents of small towns and villages, or the older generation with a not so high level of education, this is already a question, the clear answer of which we will get only on the day of the elections.

VERELQ: A logical question arises. Is this a manifestation of a personal desire to take full control of all state and public institutions (after parliament and the judiciary) in order to maximize power? Or is the main goal to ensure total bureaucratic loyalty? And maybe this is a preventive measure to prevent any step that could negatively affect the peace process?

Alexander Iskandaryan. I don’t think this is just someone’s personal ambition. This is a very clear and conscious position of the ruling class. They understand rationally within the government. in the conditions of the current low social legitimacy (and it is really low and obviously will not increase) it is necessary to bet on bureaucratic legitimacy.

In other words, the main problem in the upcoming elections is not to increase popularity and ratings, but to concretely confirm that bureaucratic legitimacy. Make it the basis on which the government will stand. In this sense, their actions are extremely rational, and the deep division of society can be used as a tool for the ruling team to successfully pass the electoral stage.

I repeat, this is not a question of psychology or a simple personal desire of one particular person. Even if the subjective factor is present, the global calculation is built on the critical importance of bureaucratic loyalty. That loyalty must be ensured absolutely everywhere, because it is what the government relies on now and intends to rely on in the future. The period from 2018 to 2021, when the country’s leadership relied on broad social legitimacy, incredible popularity among the people and unimaginable ratings, has passed irretrievably. This political tool is lost, it’s gone, and that’s why they are forced to act in such a way.

—