Category: 2019

One of the most important keys to the development of every society is the ability to choose acceptable compromise options from the triad of pluralism as a result of active discussions about the vision of the establishment of one’s own state and the rules of coexistence. However, a constructive debate about the future of the state, during which the fundamental ideas and values ​​that will be the main landmarks and cornerstones of state building can be crystallized, is perhaps not mentioned in Armenia, so it is too early to talk about the rest.

It seemed that favorable conditions would be created in post-revolutionary Armenia for starting a civilized debate and forming a new vision of state-building as a result of clashes over different ideas, which would lead to the rooting of a qualitatively new policy. But, alas, instead of ideas, everything was focused on people. a trivial script was written, in which the antagonists – the revolutionary heroes, and the protagonists – the anti-revolutionary anti-heroes were clearly identified. A clear dividing line was drawn between “blacks” and “whites” so that the society would not be entangled in semi-shadows. As a result of this bifurcation, all the events and discussions in Armenia from a certain point were not about the future, but only about the past, because the politics was never removed from the patterns formed by the previous logic, and there was not enough thought to form and propose a new one.

Well, instead of ideas, “lack of ideas” came forward. Considering that every ideology is anchored on certain principles and value system, which implies a clear consistency in making every decision, then its absence opens up very wide horizons of action and creates good opportunities for the ruling power to evade.

Before, there were no “rights” or “lefts” in Armenia, because there was only one idea for both the regime and the opposition, and that idea was the “power” itself. Perhaps this is the reason for the simple fact that even today really ideological political units with their unequivocal “isms” are not imagined. if there is no clear idea, then everything is permissible, so no political unit wants to be constrained by additional “ideological” shackles, because in Armenia, according to the old tradition, power is always preferred to the idea.

As is often the case, time will tell whether there will be political units in Armenia that will be able to counterbalance the current ruling power and push it out of its comfort zone, laying the foundation for a real constructive political debate.

Marina Muradyan

https://acnis.am/hy/ambion/26-2019 

Each government has its own social, political and ideological supports. Accordingly, the states are subject to typological division from the point of view of the management system. Still in BC In the 4th century, the famous ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, guided by the essential content of the government system, stated that the models of government acceptable to him are the aristocratic, monarchical and democratic forms. It is noteworthy that the author, while developing his thoughts on governance models, put forward the point of view according to which none of the above-mentioned systems are immune from degradation and stagnation, in which case aristocracy turns into oligarchy, monarchy into dictatorship, and democracy into tyranny. In other words, a chaotic environment.

According to Aristotle, in the case of monarchical, aristocratic, and real democracy, it is possible to ensure the normal development of society, which can only be violated in the case of the above-mentioned degradation. When talking about Aristotle, we should mention that he considered aristocracy to be the best example of governance, and democracy to be the most dangerous and risky, arguing that in the case of the latter, the dividing line between chaos and democracy is very delicate and sensitive, which is not always possible to maintain. From our side, we should also add that “crazy” and “lumpenized” crowds can really pose a deadly threat to the development of society and, in particular, to ensuring the effective functioning of state institutions.

With this article, we will try to describe the internal Armenian political environment that emerged in 2018. after the spring events, as well as to highlight the dangers and possible risks arising from it for the existence of state institutions and, in general, statehood.

The famous Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci believed that the basis of power is the securing of hegemonic positions in all spheres of life, the ruling power must always take care of securing its dominant positions in economic, cultural, financial and all other spheres. However, according to Gramsci, the most important guarantee of maintaining power is securing hegemonic positions in the ideological field. He would like to say that the ruling elite must in every way justify the advantages and positive aspects of their government to other representatives of the society, convince the citizens that the options offered by the authorities for solving the problems they face are the best among the existing ones, that the standards of the latter’s perception of the world correspond to the public’s perceptions as much as possible. With this, the ruling elite must in every possible way achieve that ordinary citizens consider their power as a necessary means to a more prosperous and secure future.

The number one “weapon” of the authorities in solving this problem in the 21st century is the media field. The representatives of the elite have the opportunity to drum up the fact of the effectiveness of their government and public support through the mass media, particularly through social networks. At the same time, it should be noted that the peculiarity of the media field is that, as a tactical “tool” for reaching and maintaining power, it provides the same opportunity to non-governmental forces as well. Speaking about the media field as the main means of propaganda in the 21st century, it is necessary to notice its most negative aspect: unfortunately, the main determinant here is finance, as a result of which the entire media field is often deprived of an ideological and constructive component, being instead filled with cheap and contentless material.

Coming to the life of Inner Armenia, let’s note that our reality has not been spared from the above-mentioned fact. After the victory of the Artsakh movement and the restoration of independent statehood, the elite that came to power, unfortunately, took the path of stagnation, degradation and stagnation. From independence to the present day, the ruling elite has always been engaged in the process of justifying and legitimizing its power. All this time, the media field served as a tool. The military clan that came to power after the Artsakh war tried to justify the legitimacy of its power, constantly emphasizing its contribution to victory and the vital importance of their leadership. However, over time, this propaganda trick exhausted itself, because it was not able to solve the challenges facing the citizens and the state. The result was in 1990. the coup d’état and the transition of the supreme power to the oligarchy.

The third ruling elite, as time showed, also lacked the ability to respond to nationwide challenges, therefore, it had to adopt other tactics to at least extend its power. That new tactic was mostly based on the process of degradation of society’s civilized values, intellectual potential, and moral and psychological situation. What has been said is best reflected in the famous expression of the former President Serzh Sargsyan: “We will hit as much as we need to”. The entire oligarchic system spared no means to ensure public sentiments according to which “there is no game against them”. For this purpose, political figures were “bought”, “pocket” oppositions were created, socio-political events (demonstrations, marches, protests) were organized. However, the circumstance of being organized from one center predestined the conclusion of the expression of dissatisfaction of “ignorant” citizens. Ultimately, all this led to the emergence of an apathetic environment in the political field and a sense of public hopelessness and incompetence. In other words, we can record that everything was done by the criminal-oligarchic elite to degrade and manipulate the society and, thus, to secure their power. But all that could not be done only in the political arena. the most important component of the complete degradation of society was the cultural and moral-psychological aspect, and the criminal oligarchy, represented by its leader Serzh Sargsyan, was well aware of this. On the way to cope with the cultural and intellectual degradation of the public, the first and main blow was directed at the educational system. The corruption of the educational system and, in general, the concept of “education” reached the point that “buying a diploma” became a widespread phenomenon. After dismantling the educational system, the next blow was aimed at the cultural environment. the ruling oligarchic elite began to publicize and propagate its false, “pseudo” value system through representatives of a new branch of culture that emerged in the 21st century, the so-called show business. In the conditions of the destruction of the educational system and the absence of a pro-state ideology in the field, a large part of the youth began to quickly absorb the moral “pseudo” value system presented by the criminal-oligarchic elite through show business and, in general, the low-quality media field. With all this the picture became complete. The tactics of the criminal oligarchy to manipulate and control the main part of the population, fed by a false value system, apparently achieved its goal. However, in the case of a deep, detailed and professional analysis of the situation, the real picture became obvious. the ruling “pseudo”-elite, being unable to provide timely and appropriate solutions to the challenges of nationwide significance and thus degrading the broad masses of society with a selfish tendency to maintain its power, not only failed in its goal, but also endangered the interests of the state, the state and the entire nation. In the conditions of globalization characteristic of the 21st century, in the face of many internal and external challenges, the way of doing things typical of the Middle Ages to degrade the society, to rule over them through darkness, was doomed from the beginning to an inglorious end. The result was the irreversible damage done to the state and the well-known cases of the spring of 2018, when the oligarchy, as a model of economic and political management, finally exhausted itself and gave way to a new model of management.

In order to maintain their positions, the new authorities had to find a new social, political and ideological support, and the election of the latter was based on the model of mob rule “hidden” under the guise of democracy. According to us, the analysis of the internal Armenian situation of the last year proves the fact that the new ruling elite, mainly composed of representatives of the former criminal-oligarchic system, is not able to solve the most serious civilizational challenges. The basis of the activity of the entire ruling elite is the populist way of working, destructive political agendas, as well as ways that have nothing to do with the national worldview and value system. In such a situation, without a doubt, the social and ideological support of the government can be exclusively the desperate and degraded crowd. It is also noteworthy that the new authorities are trying to combine the model of mob rule with some elements of the monarchical model.

The best proof of what has been said is the role and importance of the leader of the current political electorate, Nikol Pashinyan, in the direct survival of the existing political system. In fact, the former political “pseudo”-elite that came to power in Armenia after the spring of 2018, or maybe transformed, having exhausted all the possibilities of the oligarchic model of governance, is now trying to find an ideological and social support for its power, at the hands of the degraded and misled crowd. But, like the previous times, this time too, the “pseudo-elite” devoid of state thinking, national ideology, a vision of self-renewal, professional and intellectual personnel resources, a clearly developed and measurable economic plan in time and space, and a strategic concept of state security will fail. The result, unfortunately, will be unnecessary loss of time and new challenges added to the old ones and waiting for their solutions.

Hayk Paityan

According to the famous English writer George Orwell, the one who controls history, controls the future. Orwell had in mind that writing of a history contained a political context: whoever writes history formulates the legitimacy of his power.

Writing a history in politics is very important. The elite of nations fighting for independence justifies the historical right to struggle for independence; in Soviet times, history was based on the “historical” class struggle; history in our neighboring Azerbaijan is being written to justify the fact that they are a nation with a history of many thousands of years and possessing historical rights in this region.

Rewriting history is one of the most important parts of political activity. New nations and new states were born as a result of a particular history. This rewriting also brings other undertones: for example, when the political elite collapses and partially discredits its competitors in order to justify its right to power.

The new government of Armenia is trying to retell its version of the history of the recent past: the one who sets the story belongs to the future, therefore he will be the “white” one, and the rest will be “blacks.” This has become the main arena of the current struggle for power.

The struggle for the right to rewrite history in Armenia began with the case of “March 1,” and it is no accident that this process became the center of the political struggle. In fact, the struggle is not about the new principles of state development that the revolution was supposed to bring, but for the sake of the legitimacy of some political elites at the expense of others. In fact, the legitimacy of the government is not based on new values, on the anchor of “New Armenia”, but on the tragic events of 2008.

The thesis “New Armenia” should have been understood as follows: we turn the page of history and form new relations, but, based on the fact that all politics is based on the events of 2008, the new government returned us to Old Armenia, and it became one of the conflicting parties itself. The whole propaganda machine of the government is aimed at proving the righteousness of one of the militant sides of “Old Armenia”, recomposing the story and punishing the other side.

This casts doubt on the legitimacy of the current government, because people voted for “New Armenia,” and not for one of the parties in the political struggle of “old Armenia.” It turns out that the people who voted for New Armenia were misled.

Time will show where this misunderstanding will lead us to.

A:Last weekend, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan was on a working visit to Kyrgyzstan, where he participated in the regular session of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council. Pashinyan, as the head of the country presiding over the Eurasian bodies, made an opening speech. The heads of governments of the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union discussed the distribution of import duties between the budgets of the member states, the development of the Union’s unified financial market, the signing of the agreement “On cross-border movement of hazardous wastes” in the EAEU customs territory, the development of the agro-industrial complex in the Union and other issues. As a result of the session, a number of documents were signed. As part of the visit, the meetings of the RA Prime Minister with the President of Kyrgyzstan Sooronbai Jeenbekov and the Head of the Russian Government Dmitry Medvedev took place.

It is planned that the concept of creation of EAEU unified financial markets will be signed in Yerevan on October 1 at the session of the Higher Eurasian Economic Council.

…of the RA Prime Minister Kyrgyzstan the results of the visit can be considered successful, taking into account the signing of a number of important documents, especially related to the creation of the common financial market of the Eurasian Economic Union and member in the states organizedin competitions of securities placement, circulation and: credit of storiesregarding of information exchange possibility with October 1 is no less important for Armenia Er:and:doing to be held EATM B:short council at the sessionSingapore of the Prime Minister and: Iran of the president possible participationwhich Nikol Pashinyan announced in his opening speech. He specifically said: “How? EATM–to whom chairmanերկիր՝ we separately attention we are made this two countries with our organizationof cooperation to the questions»:

Political some Observers attach great importance to this initiative of Armeniapayconsidering that the expansion of EAEU representation in Yerevan can give a certain political weight to that organization, which will be beneficial for Armenia as well. Political commentator Hakob Badalyan, however, does not say that the leaders of EAEU member states have created certain artificial obstacles. kcreate and not alloware givel:, that the assembly to be held in Armenia will be important. Like jealousyatypical there has already been a precedent, when during the April 2016 Four-Day War, the meeting of the EAEU Governmental Council was moved from Yerevan on the grounds that Ilham Aliyev might get upset. “Of course, nowE:A:TM:–to whom work have at all other of Armenia with, thatthe Eurasian her entityn: more is raises and ohd: in the structure trying is ato do questions, which ones in line with are her to the benefit, which ones more typical are sovereign to the state. Let’s see, or Armenia: how much will be able toprovide erand:anya of the assembly ohd: representativeness and: E:A:TM: to the assembly to reportreally regional and geopolitical significant character“, the commentator said in a conversation with “Azatutyan”.

The positive results of the Prime Minister’s visit should not be ignored Kyrgyzstan presidentand the importance of Nikol Pashinyan’s meetings with the Prime Minister of Russia, which is conditioned by the readiness for further development of constructive interaction between these countries, in particular, the prospect of an unprecedented strengthening of Armenian-Kyrgyz economic and political ties. As for the traditional partnership relations of our country with Russia, it should be noted that the security component prevails in them as before. And since the economic situation is not very good, the Prime Ministers of Armenia and Russia discussed mainly the development of trade and economic relations, increasing the volume of goods turnover, problems of implementation of joint projects.

Let’s hope that the discussions will be followed by real, concrete actions for the benefit of the two strategic partner countries.

OhOn August 15, environmentalists held a protest near the Government building. They are against the operation of the Amulsar mine and claimed that the mine will have a disastrous effect on the environment. Yesterday, the Investigative Committee published the results of the examination conducted by the international company ELARD, according to which there is a very low probability that the contaminated waters of the Amulsar mine will have an impact on the springs of Jermuk. According to the report, no violation was recorded in terms of preservation of biodiversity. After receiving the international expert opinion on the study of the operation of the Amulsar mine, the body conducting the proceedings found that there are no grounds to continue the criminal prosecution in the case related to the mine.

…Environmentalists, however according to they are not published conclusion with and they demand to stop the construction works of the mine, because Further exploitation of Amulsar, in their opinion, can have devastating consequencesin terms of pollution of the environment, particularly Jermuk springs and Lake Sevan։ Gold mining permission received british The assurance of “Lydian Armenia” company Amulsar Q:ain the Republic of Yastan first miningthe program is, thatn: implemented is International financial of the corporation and: Reconstruction and development european bank standards appropriate effects evaluation, is not a convincing argument for environmentalists. They kept the roads leading to the mine closed for a long time, regularly new onesdoing demonstrations, other protest actions.

It must be said that the problem of Amulsar is not new, it comes from the time of Hovik Abrahamyan’s prime ministership, more precisely, from the day the construction of the mine was started, in August 2016. B:guard activists eand don’t series scientists by appeared concernsis “Lydia The officials of Armenia” consider ittaxraised noise. A:of the picture executive director Hayk: Aloyan «of freedom» with in the conversationopinion is obviouslyl, or here political, other no or environmental problems are manipulated. «Being directed are people, that like promotions implement: We think we are, that this more a lotpolitical is»,- mentionis “Lydian» representative: Opponents claim the opposite:expressing belief that the project will have a catastrophic impact on the surrounding water resources.

In any case, people’s worries are not unfounded. The Investigating Committee, stating that mine withconnected in case «criminal the pursuit to continue grounds there are none“, in the same messagestates that ELARD of the company spent examination resultsin: according to՝ «available isa lot low probability, that Amulsari mine contaminated the waters effect will haveJermuk sources on»։ It means that there is a possibility of danger, however “very low probability”. So people’s worries are not in vain.  If there is even the slightest possibility of danger to human life, the action should be reconsidered immediately. At least, that’s how they would act in the states implementing people-centered policies, among which Armenia definitely does not belong. Alas!

On August 10, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan participated in the restart of the Maralik cotton yarn factory. According to the Prime Minister’s official website, Pashinyan toured the factory, got acquainted with the production process and capabilities, working conditions and opportunities. While presenting the production process to the Prime Minister, the heads of the factory, Gevorg Gasparyan and Vardan Srmakesh, noted that the factory will produce cotton and semi-cotton yarns, and there will be a production line for the processing of fabric waste with a combination of the latest technologies. It is also planned to launch the production of medical cotton items.

Aram Barseghyan, the driver-assistant of the former Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Armenia Armen Ashotyan, was arrested within the framework of the criminal case investigated by the Special Investigation Service, and he was charged with aiding large and particularly large-scale embezzlement. Barseghyan, according to the CSI report, recognized himself as fully guilty, confessed to the crime committed by him, repented for what he had done, and fully restored the material damage caused to the state. Taking into account the mentioned circumstances, the body conducting the proceedings released Barseghyan from the restraining order, and a restraining order was chosen against him, the signature not to leave. According to the State Police, the preliminary investigation is ongoing, measures are being taken to find out the entire range of persons involved in the commission of crimes.

Gevorg Lalayan commented

CNN reports that last Thursday, seven nuclear specialists working at the Russian state-owned Rosatom Nuclear Energy Corporation died as a result of an explosion at a military test site in the north of the country, not far from the port of Severodvinsk. “We think it was a consequence of the failed Burevestnik nuclear missile test,” Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at the Middlebury Research Institute in Monterrey, told reporters.

The Guardian reports that the explosion caused an increase in radiation in neighboring cities, exceeding the permissible norm by 20 times within half an hour. Last week, the Russian nuclear program experts also noticed the “Serebryanka” ship carrying nuclear fuel at the site of the explosion, which, they believe, took part in the restoration works. The ship was previously spotted in waters near Novaya Zemlya, where the Burevestnik missile was tested in 2017.

The Wall Street Journal quoted a senior administration official as saying that the United States believed the explosion was the result of a failure at the launch site, rather than an explosion after the missile was launched. However, it remains unknown whether the failure occurred during launch or due to other circumstances. According to the newspaper, a person close to the Minister of Defense also suspects that “Burevestnik” exploded. According to him, the explosion may have been caused by tests of a different type of engine, which is known among defense industry experts as the “Putin Battery”.

Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that authorities in the Arkhangelsk region urged residents of a village within range of the missile test to leave their homes just days after the explosion.

Prepared by Marina Muradyan

CNN informs that last Thursday, seven nuclear specialists employed by Rosatom, Russia’s state atomic energy corporation, were killed in a blast at a military test site in northern Russia, not far from the port of Severodvinsk.

“We think it was a nuclear-powered cruise missile that they call Burevestnik, also known as Skyfall” Jeffrey Lewis, an arms-control expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey said to the reporters.

The Guardian reports that the explosion caused radiation readings in neighboring cities to spike to 20 times their normal level for half an hour. Experts in Russia’s nuclear programme have also spotted the nuclear fuel carrier ship Serebryanka near the site of last week’s explosion, where it is believed to have been taking part in a recovery effort. The vessel had previously been spotted in the waters near Novaya Zemlya, where Russia reportedly tested the Burevestnik missile in 2017.

The Wall Street Journal writes that the U.S. believes the explosion was the result of a failure at a launch facility and not a missile that exploded after launch, a senior administration official said. However it remains unclear if the failure occurred at launch or through other circumstances.

The person close to the Defense Ministry also said he likewise doubted that Skyfall was responsible for the blast and said instead it was likely caused by tests of a different type of engine, called “Putin’s battery” among defense industry experts. The engine is meant to be used for space launches or the Poseidon.

The New York Times writes that authorities in Arkhangelsk region urged residents of a village near a missile test range to leave their homes, days after the explosion.

Prepared by Marina Muradyan

According to the famous English writer George Orwell, whoever controls history controls the future. Orwell meant that the writing of history contains a political context. whoever writes the history, he formulates the pattern of his power or, as it is customary to say, the legitimacy.

Narration of history is of the most important importance in politics. The elite of the nations fighting for independence justify the historical right to fight for independence, during the Soviet period, history was written with “historical” justifications of class struggle, in our neighbor Abejan, history is written to justify that they are a people with several thousand years of history behind them and have historical rights in this region.

Rewriting history is one of the important parts of political activity. As a result of narrating history in one way or another, new nations and new states were born. This rewriting also brings other shades. for example, when the political elite splits, and a part discredits its competitors in order to justify its right to rule.

The new government of Armenia is trying to write its version of recent history. whoever writes the history, the future belongs to him: he will be the “white” and the rest will be the “black”. It has become the main stage of the current struggle for power.

The struggle for the formulation of the discourse of history in Armenia began with the trial of the “March 1” case, and it is no coincidence that that trial became the focal point of the political struggle. In fact, the struggle is not about the new principles of the development of the state, which the revolution was supposed to bring, but for the right of one part of the political elite at the expense of the other. In fact, the legitimacy of the government is not built on new values, on the anchor of “New Armenia”, but on the tragic events of 2008.

The thesis of “New Armenia” should be understood as follows. we are turning the page of history and forming new relations, however, putting the events of 2008 as the basis of all politics, the new government returned us to Old Armenia, and it itself became one of the parties to the conflict.

The entire propaganda machine of the government is committed to proving the rightness of one of the warring sides of “Old Armenia”, rewriting history and punishing the other side. This calls into question the legitimacy of the current government, because people voted for “New Armenia” and not for one of the sides of the political struggle for existence of “Old Armenia”. It turns out that people who voted for “New Armenia” were misled.

Time will tell where this misunderstanding will lead us.