RENOUNCE FROM THE IDEA OF A STATE
Lragir.am
26/01/10
Vardan Dzhaloyan: cultural studies, art critic, author of 100 books
on art Mr. Dzhaloyan, the result of what are the current political
processes?
To understand what is happening now, you must dig deeper. Our people
have long lived a religious community, and there is nothing good. The
Church does not replace the state, and politics has always lacked in
the Armenian reality. But we were business people who have had common
interests with the clerics. Today something like this is happening and
the prime minister is not an accident to become similar to a cleric.
Politics is again replaced by business which is the worst thing ever,
in other words, the leadership renounces from the idea of a state
which means politics is going to collapse.
First, they need to know what politics mean and only after to be
engaged in it. At one time, we conceded this monopoly to the Yerevan
Khan, the Ottoman Sultan or the Shah of Persia. Intellectuals are
engaged in policy in fact. In sociology there is the notion of
a statehood plank. That is, there are groups that represent their
power, based on group interests, and there are associations that have
crossed a bar and became a State. Sociologists say that in Armenia,
this bracket has not yet been overcome.
Do you think the third state failed and we need to build a forth one?
Let us take the fascist state of Franco. It was a succeeded state,
in other words a state which passed the plank of statehood. In other
words, a state is needed to be the only sovereign in the region,
no other power has to exist.
What we have today: a parliament with a general political force,
a general party of businessmen which has three factions today:
Republican, Prosperous Armenia and OYP. They have a clear perception
of their economic interest. They could fulfill it, if they had their
own model of the state. This model is an enterprise in which they
are capitalists, and we are wage workers. Consequently, they must
exploit the population.
Let us remember that first political parties were formed in
England-liberal and conservative. That was the English elite divided
into two parts – the farmers and industrial aristocracy. There is
such a mode of a state when politics belongs to the elite and makes
reforms in it. In Armenia, now, we are close to this situation. In
other words, fight between different groups of the elite. In Armenia
those reforms change little. Therefore, we need to understand what
is happening in our country, to determine the problem. For example,
in 2003, it was felt that the priority is the disclosure of crime on
October 27. In 2008 the task was declared the disorganization of the
state of state of bandits.
In the present context, we have to attach importance to the formation
of new force. Proposals can be very different, but the most important
problem for our country becomes the barbarization. Our society is
becoming more and more barbaric, which is a direct consequence of
the low level of intelligence and moral qualities of politicians.
Dwelling on the new force, new ideology which will be able to win
the barbarism you noted. Where do we have to look for it? What kind
of ideology does it have to have?
The institute of sociology carried out a survey to find out the social
structure of Armenia: the result was: 7-8 percent-ruling classes, 12-13
percent middle classes, 65 percent-low classes and 15 percent marginal.
We see that in our country, the democracy cannot succeed because
the middle class is the one which works for the civil society. I
would like our country to be a liberal-democratic country. For the
65 percent the country is important to be a socialistic one and for
the 15% of the marginal class- democratic.
We have an alternative – a system that we choose, or socialist
slogans. In this sense, I think prospective are those projects which
are based on social ideas.
After you have selected, you will have to think about the talent of
a politician. The opposition has more illusions, yet they live in a
liberal utopianism, and the three-headed dragon (I have in mind the
three coalition parties) are not involved in politics and does not
have political thinking. Consequently, it is very difficult to form
a political movement.
Following what is happening in the world, we will see that socialists
head governments everywhere. After ’80s, when the economy of the
countries of the Latin America collapsed, those forces came to power
and managed to propose their projects. Instead of modernization,
they proposed development projects, just what the CB and the World
Bank are doing today.
Who can initiate the formation of the new force?
Any experienced politician. For example, in 2003, the majority
of society supported Stepan Demirchyan, but he failed to use the
support because of his little inexperience. He had to propose economic
policies. 55% is not enough to win. It should be at least 60-65. On
the other hand, external forces are very important: in Armenia it is
difficult to overthrow the government, because for the West, Armenia
is not a strategic country, and it is not trying to make a zone of
its interests. At some point Russia is possible to be interested in
democratic reforms. West is not going to push the revolution here in
vain, and to spoil relations with Russia.
As to the new ideology, then it can appear only from new discourses,
and the leaders will bear themselves.
Interview By Siranuysh Payan