Category: 2018

 

Weekly Update

 

Bloomberg writes,
that “Armenian opposition leader Nikol Pashinyan was elected prime minister by
the country’s parliament, completing a remarkable rise to power backed by
massive street protests that he’s termed a “velvet revolution.”

Lawmakers voted
by 59 to 42 on Tuesday to name Pashinyan as premier, a week after the ruling
Republican Party, which holds a majority of seats, had refused to back his
candidacy. This time, 13 Republicans voted with minority parties in favor of
Pashinyan, who led the protests that ousted Armenia’s longtime ruler Serzh
Sargsyan.”

The Guardian in
their article about the situation in Armenia, write the following: “In an
interview with the Guardian during the protests, Pashinyan said dark political
forces had been trying to derail Armenia’s peaceful revolution. His aides said
Karen Karapetyan, the prime minister from September 2016 until last month, and
who is close to Russia, had sought backroom deals to derail a vote last week
for Pashinyan to become PM, which he lost.

“Some forces
are trying to engage us into political bargaining and propose me to become
prime minister but ensure and guarantee the continuation of the existing
system,” Pashinyan said. “And for me, my goal isn’t to become prime minister.
My goal is bring real changes to Armenia.”

The newspaper,
writing that “there is a touch of populist in Pashinyan”, quotes Ararat
Mirzoyan, a fellow member of Civil Contract, who was arrested with Pashinyan
last month: “He is not a populist. He is popular.”

In his article
for the New York Times Neil
MacFarquhar, writing about his encounter with Nikol Pashinyan and his
biography, says that “velvet revolution” was “the most sweeping change in this
small, landlocked country of about 2.8 million people in the southern Caucasus
since it declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.” He further
continues: “If many Armenians find it nothing short of miraculous that their
country seems transformed overnight, Mr. Pashinyan described it as the
culmination of a journey that began some 20 years ago.”

Sepaking about
the bloody clashes that resulted in the deaths of 10 people in 2008 and being
on the lam for 16 months and the following arrest in 2009, Pashinyan said: “I
am proud that I experienced it and was able to stay true to myself in that
strange environment under all different kinds of pressure.” 

Pashinyan also
spoke about the preparation of the protests: “I understood that the best way to
prevent violence is to be nonviolent,” he said. The author writes, that
“drawing inspiration from Nelson Mandela and from Gandhi’s famous 1930 walk
across India to protest British taxation, Mr. Pashinyan decided to walk around
120 miles across Armenia from Gyumri, the second-largest city, to Yerevan.”

In his
concluding remarks, MacFarquhar writes, that Nikol Pashinyan “brushes aside
fears that he has set expectations so high that he is bound to disappoint.”

“I am in a
working mood, there is no sense of euphoria, just work to do,” Mr. Pashinyan
said. “If we were able to do the impossible, that means we will be able to do
the difficult.”

 

Prepared by Marina Muradyan

 

 

Analytical

 
​

MAY 12, 2018

 

Armenia
these days he lives with the revolution. Every citizen during the day
tries not to be cut off from the news, expecting such changes that somehow
will satisfy his expectations. The course of the revolution is no longer criminal
it is not the process of overthrowing the regime, which is happening several times in the streets and squares
kept the people on their feet for weeks. Everyone understands this.

Obvious
is that the overthrow of the previous regime by the people, streets and squares
block and other actions of peaceful disobedience have already been replaced
are complaints of citizens to institutions that caused problems in the past
practical demonstrations of requirements. Gradually there are complaints and demands
the wave spreads across the country. It is clear to everyone that things are happening in the country
tremendous shifts. There is a strong public demand to change the course of the state machinery
to the good, the fair, the honest. Citizens realize that there is a way forward
opened for solving their problems.  

People
they began to demand from administrative and local self-government bodies
concrete solutions to problems. Citizens publicly in front of state bodies
speak out about abuses committed by officials over the years
and arbitrariness, demanding an answer for all that. On the Internet
New information on various crimes and misdemeanors is emerging
publications. Such a flow of facts creates a situation in which
state administration bodies lose their operational activity. Don’t
are overwhelming regarding the future of the leadership of various departments
uncertainties, on the other hand, previous settings, relationships and
connections do not allow us to understand what the new political culture is. And all that
to the background of the wave of popular protest. The impression is as if present
the situation can paralyze the state apparatus at any moment.

This
along with everything, a lot of political issues have accumulated that seriously concern people
problems. Today, it is somewhat clear in which specific issues it is no longer the former
the situation will not be repeated. They were recorded by RA Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan on May 8
in his speech at the National Assembly. Accordingly, in the activities of the newly formed government
the priority in Armenia, Artsakh and Diaspora will be national
creation of an atmosphere of solidarity, based on law and law in Armenia
establishment of national unity. “All men are equal before the law,
There will be no privileged people in Armenia, and that’s it. Election results
they will no longer be falsified, no election bribes will be distributed, and that’s it. Artificial economy
there will be no monopolies, everyone will be able to do what they like
with business, and that’s it. Human rights will be protected and that’s it.
The government will not be a means of making money, it will be uprooted from the country
corruption, and that’s it. The rule of law will be established, and that’s it.”
the people’s candidate emphasized.

As we can see, the problems are clarified
framework, which are subject to drastic changes. So people
concerns are concreted in another field. Every new step and personnel
mean they bring with them new questions. “Why him?” “How is he?”
to change”, “didn’t the prime minister hurry?” etc. These are questions that
make the course and future of the revolution uncertain. formulated problems,
should certainly be addressed by newly appointed personnel on a daily basis
through focused attention, influence and control. Staff to whom
a very responsible commitment is entrusted to them – to legality and to themselves
to carry out effective, people-centered management within the scope of powers
with the rational use of administrative levers. The old way of working when every little question
the solution depended on the “above”, sometimes even on the “favor” of the head of the state.
is no longer suitable. A law has come to replace such vicious practices
within the framework, but on his own initiative and independent decisions
the imperative to solve the problems with the establishment. In particular, the state apparatus and
In general, the public is not ready for this situation.

The revolution stopped everyone political
in front of the need to adopt a new culture. Citizens have taken a step for
revolution, for the sake of the future. And now the revolution demands the same
people take steps to fulfill the powers reserved to them by the law
to fulfill the duties. In a democratic, legal state
a citizen must always be active in his political, civic and other activities
in the defense of all rights. Officials, in turn,
are committed to providing a fair solution to the problems in their entrusted areas. This situation is new and therefore alien to the overwhelming majority of the public
for government officials. Hence the uncertainty that exists
in relation to the later revolution.

Of course, over time the entire community
will understand the essence of the new political culture. However, it is obvious that “why exactly?”
“he”, “how will he change” and other similar questions are gradually out of the question
to come from the public discourse, because the “velvet” revolution, first of all,
it is the result of the revolution that took place in people’s consciousness. That’s it
because of this, the public cannot escape from new thinking and attitudes.

The revolution is in everyone’s minds and hearts.
and it imposes a new culture of political relations.

 

Saro Saroyan

 

Editorial

11  MAY 2018

 

 

“Velvet” revolution, or maybe
simply a change of power is compared with the nationwide movement of 1988. Both
were accompanied by mass demonstrations, both caused a wave of nationwide
awakening. This is where the similarities end. The essence of both movements is different,
and they have different cultural studies and worldviews.

 

Citizens of Soviet Armenia were brought up with the poetry of Shiraz and
Paruira Sevak. These were patriots who dreamed of the return of Ararat and
lost homeland. Soviet generations, brought up on the genocide syndrome,
dreamed of revenge, and this accumulated energy burst out in 1988. Many
Armenians perceived local Armenian massacres in Azerbaijan as
continuation of the 1915 genocide.

In 1988 there was a single consolidating goal:
“Karabakh is ours.” The slogans “Unification” and “Fight, fight to the end” did not contain
no ideological or state-forming problems. It was
solely a bid for historical revenge. For the sake of Artsakh, people were ready
endure hunger, corruption and illegal activities and finally die. Not
there were even demands for independence, and if this was discussed, it was only in
context of the unification of Armenia and Artsakh as a possible scenario for
achieving this goal. There was one super goal, and everything else was secondary.

The forces that came to power as a result of the movement
Speculated on this issue until 2018. It’s no coincidence that the Republican Party
Armenia and Serzh Sargsyan have constantly stated that they will remain in power until
until the Artsakh problem is resolved, and during public
uprisings they threatened tension on the border. The Artsakh issue held society
held hostage. The opposition, represented by the ANC and Levon Ter-Petrosyan, also speculated
this problem, that, supposedly, problems in security and economic issues can
be resolved only through concessions to Azerbaijan.

Despite the only “social application” of society in
In 1988, the Armenian leadership, secretly from society, recognized in 1991
Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan (in the CIS, and then during its accession to the OSCE), and
even in this matter the popular demand was not fulfilled, but speculation
continued. The society was misled; it was not informed that the authorities
Armenia, while keeping Artsakh under their control, transferred the rights to it to Azerbaijan.

Be that as it may, since 1988 the society has delegated one
demand to the government: to unite Artsakh with Armenia. No other
there was no “social bid” or “public contract”.

 

The movement of 2018 still needs to be comprehended. The slogan “Refuse
Serge”, in addition to the decisive principle, which is what kind of deception
society punishes, has other contents that should still be
formulated. Refusal to Serge means rejection of the system and relationships that
have been formed over the past 25 years. The deeper meaning of this relationship is still
remains to be defined and formulated. These are not only the rules of relationships that
turned Armenia into a swamp, but also those institutions that are based on these
relationships that need to be givenRESTART. One thing is clear: we need a new social
contract, and the Artsakh issue can only be resolved on the basis of new realities. no more
It will turn out to plunge society into psychological traps.

1988 was based on old myths and perceptions, 2018
the year destroys the old to build new relationships.

 

 

An interview

MAY 11, 2018

 

 

What in common?
You will evaluate the activities of the media during this movement. If:
let’s compare it with previous movements, what kind of role this time?
had the press in informing the public.

It’s difficult for the media as a whole
it is difficult to observe, therefore, to give an assessment. The media is multi-layered.
During this movement, many media took different approaches
while covering the events. I need to separate the direct connection provided
the contribution of the media to the whole process. Mass media this
representatives gave the opportunity to be in the center of events
citizens anywhere in the world.

Along with this, however, I must mention actively spreading
about the active flow of propaganda and fake news. Perhaps the biggest
the disinformation was Nikol Pashinyan’s article from 2001, where he allegedly speaks
About the 7 regions of Artsakh as occupied, captured and them by diplomacy
about the impossibility of keeping This news was actively spread on the Internet and a
in a number of news outlets. It got to the point that the republican deputy Arman
Saghatelyan raised this issue in a question and answer session with the prime minister candidate
time. The tendency of some media outlets to strain the situation was also noticeable. Thus, some websites published quite aggressive and offensive materials,
for example, “The puppy is getting dangerous” or “An army of ignoramuses wants to come
with the titles of “power”.

Compare this movement to any previous movement
with little things is difficult, therefore it is also difficult to evaluate the work of the press
the difference. Perhaps I will single out one, seemingly small, but actually many
an important circumstance – drones. Drones enabled awareness
to carry out on a completely different level, became available to people
the scale of the events, beautiful overhead shots as well
the exact number of citizens participating in the demonstrations. 

Until recently
the media field (TV, Radio, Social Media) had a rather pronounced division ie
there was a pro-government media resource and relatively more independent media.
From the beginning of the movement to the end, what dynamics of changes did you notice them?
practices, and what factors influenced those changes?

It would be necessary to answer the question objectively
to carry out monitoring for months in the directions you mentioned: (TV, Radio, Social
Media). I will try to share my personal observations. The television companies, in their typical way, were silent at first, or gave
fragmented information about the movement, which, however, began to change into a movement
parallel with gaining momentum. The matter came to a surprise even for many
Apparently, the Shant TV station regularly provided live broadcasts
from the focus of events. If we compare the working style of this TV company
for example, with covering the “Electric Yerevan” movement of 2015, then
the difference is obvious.

As for the radio, let me remind you of the movement itself
Leader Nikol Pashinyan’s actions in the very first days. Pashinyan to his supporters
later, as a protest, he entered the building of the public radio station and demanded that live broadcasting be provided.
The building was later found to be without power, albeit a public radio building
the roof was covered with solar panels. Another radio station the whole movement
provided coverage from a traffic perspective and inform drivers regularly
About closed streets in Yerevan.

In the case of social media, I would single out some
bloggers who actively reminded Nikol Pashinyan’s promise that if
if this struggle fails, the latter will leave politics. days later
when it was already evident that the movement was entering a decisive phase, these same bloggers
they actively called on citizens to join the popular movement. 

What are yours like?
evaluations of international press work (was there misinformation, when?
increased interest, etc.).

I will single out Russian and Western media as international media
the press. The Russian press, contrary to many assumptions, the movement
began to cover late, but quite objectively. The mainstream media, at least
by the way, they did not draw parallels with the Ukrainian Maidan and did not name it
What is happening in Armenia is a “awake revolution”, which, let me remind you, was being done
In 2015, during the “Electric Yerevan” days. However, I should note that there were times when
One of the media close to the Kremlin staff openly
spread misinformation about Nikol Pashinyan and the participants of the movement. One
another leading site, the other day, an attempted bank robbery by a police colonel
connected with the movement. However, these cases were unique.

Western media were also actively involved in the movement
in covering. In those days, it was often possible to see foreign journalists,
who were talking to the protesters. I think the international media
interest increased after Serzh Sargsyan’s resignation, then it changed
also the rhetoric of the Western media. If it was written before then
about the opposition between the opposition and the government, then after Sargsyan’s resignation
began to write about democracy and authoritarian regime.

How will it work from now on?
formerly pro-government media. According to you, by what principles should they be guided?
the cleaning of TV and social media, the drastic reduction of misinformation
to achieve.

If we take into account that the pro-government media you mentioned are mostly
belongs to different representatives of the authorities, then probably in the same way,
although I think the realities will make us reconsider the way of working. However,
the evil of “writing material to order” remains in our reality. At this moment
it is difficult to predict. “Haykakan Zhamanak” newspaper, for example, has always stood out
objectivity and was noticed by the criticism of the authorities. as is known
the editor-in-chief of the newspaper is Anna Hakobyan, the wife of Prime Minister Pashinyan. Will it change?
Time will tell how the newspaper works.

Misinformation in the media is often not pursued
whatever the trend, it is simply the result of the journalist’s unprofessionalism. I think
there is a big gap here and we need professional journalists. The world already
long ago, he made the transition from “universal” journalists to “profile” journalists. Us
journalist-economist, journalist-lawyer, journalist-political scientist and others are needed
specialists. Unfortunately, now journalism is taught as one in universities
unified profession. It is necessary to divide it into the above parts. of course
this will not eliminate the deliberate misinformation in the daily news stream,
as well as propaganda, but will significantly reduce another aspect of the matter.

 

 

Editorial

Popular movements. 1988 and 2018
the differences

MAY 11, 2018

 

 

The so-called “velvet” Armenian revolution or, perhaps,
they directly compare the change of power to the popular movement of 1988
with. Both were followed by mass actions, both nationwide
they had brought about a great wave of awakening. The similarities end there. Two
the essences of the movements are different and different culture and
they have worldviews.

 

Soviet
Armenian citizens were brought up in Shiraz and Paruyr Sevak 
with poetry. They were the patriots who dreamed of Ararat and the lost
about the return to the homeland. A Soviet raised on the genocide syndrome
generations dreamed of a rematch, and that accumulated energy erupted
in 1988. Local pogroms of Armenians in Azerbaijan were perceived by many as 1915
continuation of the genocide of

in 1988
there was only one unifying goal: “Karabakh is ours”. “Connection” and “Fight,
fight to the end” slogans of any worldview, state building
they did not contain problems. It was exclusively a bid for historical revenge. For the sake of Artsakh
people were ready to endure hunger, tolerate corruption and
illegalities and, finally, killed. There was not even a demand for independence.
and if it was discussed, then only in the context of the unification of Armenia and Artsakh
as a possible scenario to achieve that goal. There was one overarching goal and everything else
what was secondary.

Movement
as a result, the forces that came to power speculated on this issue until 2018.
It was no coincidence that the RPA and Serzh Sargsyan kept declaring that they
will remain in power until the Artsakh issue is resolved, and public
during the uprisings, they were threatened with tension on the border. The issue of Artsakh
held the public hostage. The opposition is represented by ANC
Levon Ter-Petrosyan, was also manipulating that problem, or only Azerbaijan?
it is possible to solve security and economic problems by making concessions.

Although
To the only “social order” of the public in 1988, the leadership of Armenia
In 1991, hidden from the public, Artsakh was recognized as part of Azerbaijan (CIS, and later
at the time of joining the OSCE) and even in that matter it was not a popular demand
was done, but the speculation continued. The public was disoriented.
was not informed that the Armenian authorities were under their control
while keeping Artsakh, they ceded the right to it to Azerbaijan.

anyway
Since 1988, the public has delegated one demand to the government: to annex Artsakh
Armenia. There was no other social order and “public contract”.

 

of 2018
the movement still needs to be reflected. “Reject Serzh” slogan, except
from the most important principle of establishment, that is, punishment for deceiving the public
submission also has other content, which still needs to be formulated. Reject
Serge means rejecting the system and relationships that
were formed during the last 25 years. The deeper meaning of that relationship
it still needs to be discovered and formulated. It’s not just about relationships
are the rules that turned Armenia into a swamp, but also those relations
based institutions to be RESTARTed. One thing is certain: new to us
a social contract is needed, and the Artsakh problem can only be solved anew
based on the facts. The public will no longer fall into mental traps
to throw

1988
was based on old myths and concepts, 2018 is breaking the old with the new
to build relationships.