THE SELF-GOVERNED MOVEMENT AND RAFFI’S THREE STEPS
Armen Arakelyan
18:17, February 25, 2013
During his tete-a-tete meeting with President Serzh Sargsyan, Raffi
Hovannisian offered three proposals in order to emerge from the created
political pre-crisis situation, and all three proposals were rejected.
Hovannisian didn’t discuss those proposals with the people gathered
in Liberty Square. Those proposals belonged to him, perhaps also to
his Heritage party, but not the people at the rally. It is hard to
say whether the people would approve those proposals if they were
previously discussed and formulated in Liberty Square. Although one
of three proposals was capitulating for the authorities, the other
two showed willingness to compromise.
Hovannisian went to the Presidential Palace without even clarifying
whether his followers were ready for any compromise with the
authorities.
But the demonstrators let it go. Moreover, they didn’t leave Liberty
Square even after Hovannisian suggested that everyone go home and
gather the following day. Those people clearly demonstrated that
it is not them that follow Hovannisian; they forced him to follow
them. And it is not Heritage that determines the basic rules of the
game, but Liberty Square.
Thus, this is not Hovannisian’s movement, but that of the people. And
that is the clear difference between this movement and all previous
protests that were similar.
Now the people are demanding from the authorities as much as from
Hovannisian. If it were important for the people, they would demand
that Hovannisian clarify what Sargsyan in his turn proposed to him and
to what extent those proposals were acceptable or not. Yet there are
no questions, there is only a process, and Hovannisian was continuously
forced to go forward.
Actually, he didn’t become a leader, but rather a symbol whose values
and, more importantly, simplicity created a wonderful atmosphere
for society’s self-expression. Hovannisian emphasizes the union of
Armenian citizen and Armenia, not the concept of social stratification.
It is more than obvious now that Hovannisian’s possible retreat cannot
stop this movement. It can be modified, transformed, become diminished,
but it cannot stop anymore. And there are two main reasons. First, this
movement is led by an already existing civil consciousness. Second,
instead of suppressing this awareness and pushing his personal
ambitions forward, Hovannisian shows a tendency to rely on that.
This fact enables the development of a strategy exclusively based on
public demands, which are for now attached to voting rights.
Hovannisian’s main problem is not how to lead that movement (actually,
it is self-governed for now), but to provide a greater space for
its development, partially coordinate it and control and develop
mechanisms to protect it from possible provocations.
In this sense, Hovannisian has three important steps to take. First,
he needs to clearly determine the main goal and what measures are
necessary to get there. It is one thing to request the president
transfer power unconditionally, and it is another thing to demand
new elections or else the president’s resignation.
However, committing to reaching a resolution is different from
presenting a concrete plan of action or, at least, convincing society
that the plan exists and is followed accordingly. As long as these
clarifications are not made the movement remains chaotic, and no
concrete problem can be solved.
Secondly, Hovannisian’s issue is to provide a wide political and civil
consolidation around only one issue, which is to protect and respect
citizens’ rights by civil rights and state institutions. Practically,
he doesn’t have other resources to provide such consolidation, as
his agenda and ideological positions regarding the economy, foreign
policy and other issues are considered risky by many people.
In this sense, the ARF-Dashnaktsutyun’s symbolic joining of the
movement was important. Actually, the ARF clearly mentioned that it
is joining not Hovannisian, but the civil movement and for now is
only a participant. It seems this arrangement completely satisfies
him. The joining of the Armenian National Congress’s former electorate
was important as well. It shows that, unlike the defunct Congress,
its electorate remains faithful to its ideals and goals.
The fact that Heritage intentionally ignores the Prosperous Armenia
Party (PAP) doesn’t only demonstrate its interest to take back its
positions, but also PAP’s tendency to not get involved. As was obvious
from its statement, PAP offers to transform the movement, whereby
agreements can be reached with the authorities around fundamental
improvements, something that was always a waste of time.
In the footnotes of PAP’s statement we can see an offer of cooperation
around “the plan of improvements” directed towards the Republican
Party. And while Levon Ter-Petrosyan demonstrated a strong pragmatic
attitude, he nevertheless doesn’t want to burn bridges with the
movement, considering Hovannisian a secondary factor.
Third, as much as this movement is civil, it cannot avoid being
political, as there is no other legislative option to realize its
goals. The formation of a coordinating body to make consolidated
decisions and to define responsibilities is necessary.
But, unlike the Congress, this body can persist only if it is created
based on a real socio-political consensus to make it relevant.
From: Baghdasarian