Interview by Ani Paitjan
In the space of two weeks, twice, Armenia’s parliamentarians resorted to fisticuffs as part of a personal and political argument.
According to Gevorg Ter-Gabrielyan, an international development leader and writer working in the public and private spheres in transitional countries, this culture of violence is rooted in an Armenian society that is trying to juggle between its will of tolerance, democracy and the old tradition of a belligerent nation.
Ani Paitjan: Two years after the Velvet Revolution, which was free of violence which was a key factor for its success, we notice that some politicians use not only violent rhetoric but also acts of violence. Could you comment on this paradox?
Gevorg Ter-Gabrielyan: Very often, violence is a reaction to aggression. It can be an attempt of revenge but it can also be seen as a message. In the case of the street fight between Alen Simoyna, the National Assembly’s Deputy Speaker, it was obvious that this was a case of reactive violence. One of the most senior in the current government, Alen Simonyan, is walking in the street (something unimaginable in the previous governments). Artur Danielyan, the co-founder of the far-right Adekvat party, curses his mother, to which Simonyan reacts by fighting in the street. Through this act of self-reparation, Simonyan sends a strong message: it is impossible to rely on the legal means in this situation. It is impossible to achieve justice while going to the police, it is impossible to reach justice relying on the court system.
Now let’s see the situation in another angle, the angle of duel – the ancient, aristocratic way to deal with each other. Why did it exist? Because the state system was not sufficient to deal with this situation. Now, we have no aristocracy, instead we have street fights. The duel disappeared to make a place for criminal norms, the traditions of street fight.
A.P.:How does this kind of behaviour influence the public that is a witness of these acts of violence?
G. T-G.: When it is clear that the State doesn’t have tough means to deal with this situation, you have the choice to either react as an individual because your dignity is affected, or you are a loser. This may be interpreted as an individual reaction, but this may also be interpreted as a recognition that the state system doesn’t work, as a recognition that, we as a society, have to deal with these situations ourselves. We have to be able not to rely on the state to find the best way out of every situation.
It is a well known fact, and it has been said several times by Nikol Pashinyan, that the state is dysfunctional. And it is not their fault, it’s the fault of the ancient governments represented by this Adekvat troll guy. We should understand the big picture. The old regime, when they left power, they started a troll war in Armenia against the new regime. They are funded by three sources: the second President Robert Kocharyan supporters, the third President Robert Kocharyan supporters and Russia’s supporters. These three fronts are fighting against the new government.
So, in the action of Alen Simonyan, there is not only a recognition that the heritage they received as a state is just dysfunctional, but it is also the fault of the old regime and of the entire population for 20 years, which accepted the rules of criminals, gangs in their everyday life, in corruption, in kleptocratic, oligarchic system.
A.P.:Armenia also witnessed tensions and fights between deputies. It was the first time that an event as such took place in Armenia. What does it say about the current government?
G. T-G.: Knowing many other parliaments in many other countries, I’ve seen much stronger fights that have taken place in parliaments of Japan, Turkey, even sometimes in European parliament, in Russian parliament. Here it is power politics. Power politics is very emotional, it’s very related to feelings and things like that can happen. It’s not something to applaud, but it’s something to understand.
We should understand these things in Armenia nowadays. Strategically, this country declared a system of values, which is non-violence, non corruption, “do not steal, do not kill, be honest”. But tactically, it is not always applied, as it was shown in the parliament. However, these are isolated cases and it cannot be used as an argument to discredit the current government.
The difference is, in the previous regime, we had only the system of criminal values as mainstream values. We only had homo omini lupus est, you die first, I die second, these values were represented at the highest level of the parliament heads, of the prime ministers, of the parliament members, of the ministers and we know now that because some of the ministers are in jail because of their criminal acts. So now, after the Velvet Revolution, we have a more healthy situation.
A.P.:Does this culture of violence influence geo-political decisions?
Most of the time, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is a great player, in a tactical situation, when there is a need for fast reaction. In a situation of unexpected attack, he is managing pretty well. I have no worry, no concern that they may behave aggressively towards the external world. But the issue is much deeper. If we want to become more tolerant, our entire societ raised by the idea of having an external enemy and being hated by the external enemy, makes it really difficult. If the society hates two neighbouring nations, it is raised with being scared of two neighbouring nations, in this situation, to preach tolerance, non violence, democratic society, that makes the society schizophrenic. How can you build a democratic society, a society based on human rights, when the society is being raised on hatred towards its neighbours. Every individual has to somehow make up their minds, to connect the dots to resolve this contradiction at a personal level, but instead they are getting via the media, via the school, via the environment, the other message.
Mainly, we know that democracy works best and is usually associated with wealth. So become a wealthy, democratic society internally, as much as possible, to be able to deal with the external threat. But for that, you need a very deep form of a national story, a national imagination, because your first question was, why is it not discussed? It is not being discussed because we have this false consciousness of nationalism inserted in ourselves. So, we believe in the antediluvian nation of Armenia which has been either fighting or victorious. The very slogans that Nikol Pashinyan used are very unfortunate because he said that the nation is the family. It should be the other way around. You do not explain the big thing via a small thing. The nation is much bigger than the family. You can explain the small thing via a big thing. Many of us are inserted in this false consciousness approach. And therefore, we are unable to look through the layers of consciousness to see the reality and to address it. Apart from that, small groups or individuals who are trying to address this via scientific means, via education reform, etc. But in general, we haven’t come yet to the level of courage to address this seriously.