A FRANK DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ARF
Thursday, June 20th, 2013
BY SUZANNE KHARDALIAN
In analyzing a key organizational challenge for political parties in
general and particularly social democracy in Armenia it is a well
established fact by now that social democratic parties, including
the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, are for the most part unable
to engage the citizens.
During the last 20 years, the ARF has been perceived as a campaign
vehicle and administrator of certain stigmatized ideas rather than
a core institution standing unyielding and firm with the support of
an extended ideological community. I have written about this before,
as to why membership in Armenian political parties is in catastrophic
decline (incidentally, it is a global phenomenon).
A few months ago I read about a group of young Armenians joining the
ranks of the ARF.
The article, true to its more than centenary tradition, was written
in the familiar vernacular, so if one were to change the date of
the article it would sound exactly the same whether it was written
in the 60’s, 90’s or today-2013. It would read something like this:
“The future generation, the proud bearers of our national identity, the
guardians of a national dream/vision…” Despite the lengthy sentences
highlighting devotion and fidelity and some words of wisdom, the
article conveys nothing but anonymity, shrouded in a certain mystery.
I happen to know that indoctrination and membership in the party takes
place through special ceremonies. Yet for some reason the new members
become and stay anonymous, much to the dismay of the many newcomers.
I cannot but empathize with the disappointment that the youth might
feel about the long-awaited moment of becoming a member of a desired
party, yet it is all so very solemn and equally unceremonious in many
ways. Pride-a feeling of belonging and the right to extend your new
acquired identity to the public-remains very anonymous.
While I think celebrating ARF membership is very appropriate, and a
legitimate expectation after years of loyal anticipation, the local
organizational bodies should be especially mindful since such a
romantic desire to become a member of an organized social democracy
is certainly very rare among young people today. We all know that the
majority of the youth are not keen on party membership in general and,
seems to me, not very interested in social democracy.
For young people, interest in politics is already seen to be nerdy,
but wanting to become a member of a party sounds worse. And of a party
that is seen to be on the way to being passe? Remember, for today’s
youth, the 1980s are considered to be a “several hundred” years ago.
Today, becoming a member of a party is deemed the oddest thing a teen
could do, as weird as wearing school uniforms.
That is perhaps one of the biggest changes that the party-the ARF and
its organizational institutions-must respond to. Party membership
or belonging to a formal or an informal social network that are
ideologically committed to a party, such as the ARS, Homenetmen,
the student associations (in ways similar to other popular parties)
used to convey a natural sense of belonging and identity-a way of
engaging in and understanding the community.
Even with all the individualized and mixed and opposing interpretations
of its ideology (a topic that needs public discussion by itself), for
generations being a member of the ARF with its ideology was a natural
manifestation of who you were and what you thought about the world.
But times have changed. Far fewer people today believe that membership
in a political organization or even a much less formal commitment to
its sister organizations, is a necessary expression of who they are.
There are a several reasons for this reality, and even the ones that
I do know would fill pages that I don’t have here. In any case,
the gambit is that less and less people will stick to their party
even when they find its momentary policies displeasing. What I have
in mind is of course the elections (presidential, parliamentary or
municipal) in Armenia with its bizarre ways and consequences. But
the interpretation has always been the same in the aftermath of
the elections in Armenia. We all complained about the existence of
adequate citizens. There is of course something attractive about the
notion of “lack of enlightened citizens” and holding them accountable
for their performance.
But there is also something to be said for our political parties-and
I am more concerned about the ARF, and its social democracy-which
are supposed to serve as the nexus of both physical and imagined
communities that command loyalty even when one is in disagreement or
even mad at the ARF.
This does not imply a non-critical loyalty to one’s party, but what I
suggest is an enhanced commitment to it, that allows for using one’s
voice and seeks to institute changes from within the party before
considering the transfer one’s loyalty to another party.
Yet those who belong to this category are largely people for whom
their relationship with the party is an identity-related feature-those
who are on some level emotionally involved with their party-those who
are increasingly disappearing from politics. This is very unfortunate
yet a reality that cannot be pushed aside.
Today’s ARF with its social democracy is clearly failing at the basic
function of conquering its voters’ hearts in addition to their minds,
of making them feel at home, emotionally as well as intellectually.
There has been some useful and absolutely necessary debates within
progressive circles and beyond about the right policies. We have spoken
at lenght about the role of the party, its language, modernizing its
image and strengthening its organizational structures and its campaign
strategies. Several of these issues, however, only touch upon the
issue I discuss here. Yes, it is true that language and policies
impact one’s sense of identity, but neither of these address the
major issue directly or as a distinct problem of its own.
A successful political organization such as the ARF should offer
more to the citizens. They should try to construct communities where
(especially young) people feel at home and where they find is an
important expression of who they are.
Identities today are more complex and multi-layered than they were
30 years ago. As you might expect, binding individuals as closely
to any one single layer, as was once routinely possible, is not only
traditional but almost impossible at the political fringes. Through our
reductionist worldview and the primitive insider/outsider dichotomy
we have often created very cohesive communities, though for the most
part small ones.
Clearly, the aforementioned means and strategies, if continued to
be adopted today, would end in catastrophe. The goal must be one,
even if the emotional involvement achieved would become weaker.
However, there must be some debate about how we should weave ARF
and its social democracy with our increasingly complex patterns of
identity-the new Armenian identity.
It should be about how to better intertwine ARF’s ideology, its social
democracy with other, more popular, layers of identity to which it
retains an affinity with modern issues, such as civic organizations
focused on human rights, environmental issues and social justice,
to name a few.
Unfortunately I am far better at raising the issue than at offering
possible solutions, but I do believe that the answer must start with
building or reinforcing community spaces, both physical and virtual. I
also know that such activities require enormous investment, money and
time, both of which the ARF, and its shrinking staff are increasingly
are in need of. So it is no surprise that this aspect of the ARF and
its social democratic organizational and ideological decline receives
little attention.
The challenge is enormous and even if we direct more resources to
tackle the problem the returns may be very slim. One thing is certain:
there is no way to recapture the golden age when the ARF was an
organic part of every Armenian community life around the world. But
a political organization that accepts its gradual degeneration to
become a mere campaign machine is beyond doubt doomed in the long run.
Suzanne Khardalian is a documentary filmmaker based in Stockholm,
Sweden. Her films include “Back to Ararat,” “I Hate Dogs,” and
“Grandma’s Tattoos.” She contributes regularly to Asbarez.