Category: 2020

A nation’s degree of advancement is reflected in its capacity for social consolidation in times of danger or anxiety.  It is during such periods that a public’s sense of solidarity, mutual respect, and responsibility become apparent.  In Armenia, as in many other countries, a state of emergency has been declared.

One can expect that in the future, when the coronavirus is a thing of the past, sociologists will conduct interesting studies on how various communities behaved at times of emergencies.  China showed an exceptional example of an organized state, which is difficult to say in the case of Western democratic countries.  Korea and Vietnam also stood out with their organizational skills.

Many are now discussing the superiority of the Asian race with respect to cohesion and taking on responsibility, as well as the benefits of a strong state–as opposed to Western democracies.  In such situations, the role of the centralized state is especially important.  For the Italians, the complicated situation was the opportunity to show solidarity through singing.  Italians are known for their national and mostly individual affinity for art.

In the United States, increase in food production has been paralleled with increase in arms sales.  That too has its explanation.  In a state of general panic, Americans think of self-defense, which is also typical of a people who stay loyal to the slogan “My home is my castle.” The Germans, as always, are meticulously reasoned, disciplined, and organized.  These have been indispensable features of the German nation’s behavior for centuries. Our history of the past thirty years shows that in times of danger, as it was during the days of the Artsakh war and the four-day war in April 2016, we have shown brilliant examples of a national clenched fist.  The large-scale demonstrations of 1996, 2008, 2013, and 2018 are also evidence of the ability to consolidate and self-organize, which also bear clear testimony to the potential of Armenian unity.  But now we seem to have run out of our erstwhile reserves of unity and harmony.  What is the reason?

In the state of emergency declared in connection with the coronavirus, our society, unfortunately, does not show solidarity and expressions of responsibility and respect for one another, as in the times mentioned above.  The sense of danger is especially characteristic of small nations.  Small communities are easier to unite and have a stronger instinct for self-defense.  Such qualities have always been characteristic of our nation.

But there are times when societies split.  We seem to be living in such a time.  We cannot overcome the phase of dichotomy that began during the 2018 power shift, and the reason for the separation is not between the “old” and the “new.”  The “old ones” can be only a few hundred people, but the dividing lines are in the tens of thousands.  From 2018 onwards we are unable to come to a social and political agreement, which is manifested by continuing accusations of hostility, hatred and malice, especially on social networks.

The political nation must and can agree on the rules of the game acceptable to all parties and a common value system.  It seems that this is what the Armenian society is missing today.

Political philosophy, or worldview, solves a few vital issues.  The main one is consolidating the public around a general value system. Without common understandings and value systems there cannot be a political nation, in whose absence a void arises between governing elites and the people.

Political worldview integrates the personal viewpoints of citizens into shared objectives and aspirations.  It is upon those common tenets that political systems are built.  That is a very important process for any state that wants to create a stable administrative system.

Until 2018 a divide had deepened between the governing class and the public, as a consequence of which quite easily, by “velvet” means there took place a regime change.  The ruling elite did not even try to put up a serious resistance.  That was the result of the government’s conceptual bankruptcy.  Time will tell if this served as a lesson for future governments, but so far it does not seem to be the case.

In 2018 the public came together in the name of systemic changes. Such transformation was desired by virtually all, even by members of the ruling party of the time and high-level officials.  It was clear, however, that the previous governing class had lost its political immunity, and the Republican Party representatives their motivation for struggle. Indeed, the most convenient moment for political change had long been missed.

This is the characterization of our not-so-distant past.  Today it seems we stand again before the same problem.  Nearly two years have passed since the change in regime, but many people think that it is still early to expect results from the new authorities.  Time continues to roll forward, whereas the current administration has yet to present to the public any concrete conceptual or ideological proposal that would serve as a foundation for nation-building.

The fight against corruption is the obligation of every government. How effective that policy is being conducted is another matter, and that fight cannot be presented as the content of the government’s ideology.  The “struggle” against the constitutional court, the term “proud citizens,” the motto “Armenia is my hearth,” “velvet, non-violent revolution” and other similar emotional phrases and “struggles” cannot constitute bases of a state’s worldview.  These are at best promotional creations which as such have a period of freshness, after which–and especially if subjected to constant repetition–they lose their appeal and influence.

The absence of worldview and state ideology might be perceived as an indicator of democracy, but in that case the meaning of politics boils down merely to the role of serving the interests or inclinations of this or that person or group, while the foundation of state must be the ideas and goals that connect society.  The lack of ideas or, as Mr. Pashinyan says, “isms” only at first glance appears to be an _expression_ of democracy.  In reality it opens the door to anarchy.

The government is unable to formulate and present ideas to the public, but it is inclined to separate and then mobilize its supporters against the “enemies of the people” and thus to build the basis of its power.  That is the reason one can always find people who begin to relate to the authorities as usurpers of state and pursuers of personal gain.  And so the public is split into groupings that hate each other, and hate speech becomes the call of the day.  That is natural, since very little unites the people and division continues to grow.

And it is no surprise that the political struggle unfolds, not about programs of the nation’s development, but against this or that group.