AT THE CROSSROAD: BETWEEN DIGNITY AND INSTINCT OF SELF-PRESERVATION
Naira Hayrumyan
KarabakhOpen
13-03-2008 13:14:40
The Armenian world – Armenia, Artsakh and the Diaspora – is discussing
seriously the possibility of establishment of democracy and protection
of national security in Armenia. The post-election process in Armenia
is viewed in this context. Although everyone understands this is a
primitive approach, in this discourse many perceive the government of
Armenia as a guarantor of national security, and Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s
supporters as carriers of democracy which is believed to pose national
security to threat.
The discussion takes place in different aspects in the three parts
of the Armenian world.
In Armenia, which is the subject in this process, a great number of
people think that democracy cannot be sacrificed. They think that
the government violated democracy long before March 1. There was no
democracy in the country in the pre-election period when the government
took under control the majority of the media. A major part of people
in Armenia think the absence of democracy is lack of respect of the
government for people, violation of rights, honor and dignity of
every separate person. Most of those people think this behavior of
the government is a heavier blow at the national interests than the
external foe.
In Armenia there are also people who think that some freedoms could
be sacrificed to security and stability. Some people agree not to
get information, live in a corrupt, non-democratic country only to
avoid war.
The correlation of those two parts of the Armenian society is difficult
to measure.
In Artsakh, which is the main subject of national security and where
skirmishes occurred on the border some time ago, there is almost no
discussion (except for a couple of alternative opinions). There is
a diehard opinion that no democracy will help if they are shooting
on the border, that those who cause instability in Armenia are
accomplices of the external foe which is interested in the weakness of
Armenia. In Armenia nobody perceives the idea that democracy can also
be a guarantor of national security. Most people of the country think
that only a strong government can guarantee security in this stage.
Judging by blogs and forums, opinions differ. Most Armenians living
abroad, who live in accordance with democratic rules, were frightened
by the border incident and rumors about funding of the Armenian
opposition from the outside, and think that for the sake of stability
and security it is possible to ignore rigged elections, corruption,
violation of human rights.
Everyone knows that in Armenia non-democratic elections are already
customary, whereas stability is a national priority, say most Diaspora
Armenians, especially who have a Dashnaktsutyun-like thinking.
There are also a great number of Diasporans who do not accept the
present government. They think that this government is a threat
to national security, both in terms of internal and external
policies. They consider the ongoing process as an effort of the
government to hold on to the top of the pyramid.
The following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Part of the Armenian nation perceived the ideas of regional
integration offered by Levon Ter-Petrosyan as a threat to their
security. Hardly anyone denies that the world is moving toward
integration, that this is the only way of not taking a back seat in
politics, that Armenia cannot live in isolation forever, but analyzing
the external conditions, especially hostile neighbors, every Armenian
understand inside that in this situation opening of borders, Caucasian
integration may lead to physical extermination of the Armenian people.
2. Democracy has not become an absolute value for the Armenian people.
Freedom of expression of thoughts, enjoyment of rights for freedom of
political and other opinions set down in laws, public discussion of
urgent problems of the society have not become part of the Armenian
mentality. The basis of the national worldview is the instinct of
self-preservation which stems from objective external conditions.
3. Due to the lack of free media, the Armenian people have difficulty
understanding what the struggle in Armenia is for, and how it is
connected with national security. If it is a banal struggle for
power, why are people involved in it? If the change of orientation is
concerned (pro-West or pro-Russian), how is it possible to find out
without a public discussion, which is more beneficial for an average
Armenian? If it is a Turkish or whatever political plot aimed at
weakening the state, and its external political potential, very serious
arguments are needed to make such accusations. If those arguments had
been offered to people, everything would have moved in a different
direction. The lack of arguments gives rise to other thoughts.
4. Assume that Armenia sacrifices democracy for the sake of stability.
Assume that the external forces forced Armenia to make concessions
which threaten national security. Assume that people decides to go
on protest.
What actions will be taken against the society which protests
against the decision of the government to return the territories,
for instance? Again impose a state of emergency?