The further the process of power change in Armenia progresses, the more often the question is raised, how can the mass popular movement that took place in the country be characterized? The most disputes are around the following dilemma. was it a “velvet” revolution or are we dealing with a simple change of power? Opinions are naturally shared.
Debates about the nature of mass movements in Armenia arose during the 2008 presidential elections. At that time, the opposition candidate Levon Ter-Petrosyan, who was holding mass street events, announced that he was carrying out a bourgeois-democratic revolution in the country. Such a characteristic of his opposition policy certainly did not reflect the definition of the bourgeois-democratic revolution accepted in social science, because it did not include the process of transition from the monarchy to the bourgeois-democratic order. Rather, the opposition leader had a problem at the time to justify his statement that the enemies of the country are only the two leaders of the ruling clan – Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan. And that provision aimed to bring the members of the ruling camp to the side of the opposition, regardless of their socio-political status. In other words, there was a need to justify the alliance proposed by the opposition leader with the oligarchs. A number of oligarchs really accepted that proposal and tried to go to the opposition camp. However, the ruling elite stopped the process by using brutal force against the protesters. It was not the implementation of a power change by destroying the power camp received Since then, only disputes have remained as to whether the described opposition path can be called a bourgeois-democratic revolution. Everyone is left to their own opinion.
The difference in the strategy of the struggle was radically different in 2008. compared to post-election complaints. This time, the leader of the opposition, Nikol Pashinyan, presented an ultimatum on complete capitulation not only to the head of the current regime, but also to the entire ruling party. A demand was put before the latter to choose the “representative of the people” as the prime minister of the country. Such questioning led to the fact that the other parliamentary parties moved to the opposition camp and nominated the “people’s prime minister” candidate in the parliament. The Prime Minister was elected. It is noteworthy that already then Pashinyan announced that there will be no oligarchs and businessmen in the government. A dividing line between the popular movement and the “bourgeoisie” was marked from the beginning.
Later, the next ultimatum of the elected Prime Minister on the need to hold extraordinary parliamentary elections in December of the current year put all parliamentary parties “outside the people’s law”. They were described as “counter-revolution”. As a result, the entire parliamentary staff of the National Assembly surrendered. In other words, the popular movement rejected the entire cadre of the ruling class. That trend was already noticeable during the Yerevan mayoral elections, when “Prosperous Armenia” and HY Dashnaktsutyun parliamentary parties received a small number of voters’ votes.
There is almost no doubt that the entire current staff of deputies will remain outside the National Assembly in the upcoming extraordinary parliamentary elections. Pashinyan’s government will receive the absolute majority of votes. However, the question whether it was a “velvet” revolution or a simple change of power does not lose its urgency.
Again, the question is ambiguous. Therefore, judgments on that subject would not be superfluous. Is there any characteristic of the changes taking place in the country that can be considered significant? One thing can be stated unequivocally. big owners and representatives of shadowy and legal business (let’s call them bourgeoisie) are gradually pushed out of the state administration system. The route of “de-feudalization” declared by the Prime Minister is being carried out throughout the country. The same thing happens in power structures – army and police. Most often, “relatives” of the revolutionary camp are appointed to state positions.
But what could that mean? The definitions of the last century are not capable of describing the current socio-political transformation in Armenia. Superficially, it resembles a “proletarian revolution”. removal of wealthy strata from power and transfer of power to “the people”. In the country itself, it has been talked about for a long time that the process of dismantling the criminal-oligarchic system is going on. The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that his course is aimed at the establishment of the rule of law in the country, that is, a comprehensive legal system. For now, measures are being taken to root out corruption, which are based only on the will of the Prime Minister. No other goals have been announced yet. But it would not be correct to claim that the popular movement does not have clear values and goals.
The meaning and logic of the transition from the system created in the country to the planned legal system in the last two decades are completely transparent. The tactic used is also clear: imposing universal subordination to the direction of the prime minister. However, one circumstance is not so clear. can this transition be called a revolution? If this is a revolution, then we have to deal with a change in the political system. In that case, it is necessary to find out whether the existing criminal-oligarchic regime can be called a state political system. If yes, then we are dealing with a revolution. If not… it’s hard to pinpoint what we’re dealing with.
There is no consensus among researchers as to whether a criminal-oligarchic regime is a state entity. There is agreement only about the essence of such regimes, that is, similar systems are anchored on the agreement of the big owners who appropriated the state management system (the law of oligarchy) on the division of spheres and zones of political and economic influence. In other words, on the basis of appropriation of the state with capital. Under such regimes, all state institutions are paralyzed or subject to the “law of the oligarchs”. Basically, it’s a typical criminal community. But there is an important circumstance. a criminal-oligarchic regime cannot exist without a formally adopted Constitution. It is the Constitution that allows to “legitimize” the “law of the oligarchy”, moreover, the Constitution obeys the “law of the oligarchy” and turns into a mechanism to suppress the will of the citizens. In other words, the “law of oligarchy” is not self-sufficient and can work only under the conditions of complete suppression of public activity.
The last circumstance allows us to assume that the criminal-oligarchic order corresponds to one of the forms of state orders. And it arises when the society is completely de-ideologicalized and unable to form a state on the basis of the adopted law. Therefore, the dismantling of the oligarchy and the design of the legal system can be called a revolution with a certain reservation. In Armenia, we are dealing with just such a process. Time will tell if it will be possible to complete the whole cycle as planned.
Manvel Sargsyan