I have always been interested in the 20th century history of Armenia and the Soviet Union first of all because it was a significant period for us, Armenians, since we tried to establish a state thrice in the previous century. I would not say that all three attempts were very successful, nonetheless, there are no better ways of organizing the nation than a state and hardly anyone can deny that we have achieved significant success in the economy, culture, fields of science in those very states (the very states and not only Soviet Armenia).
In my opinion, the attitude toward the past in terms of both 20-year period and 100-year period should be as rational – without emotions – as possible. This is how, say, the Spanish do who equally respect the memory of both Franco’s supporters and people who fought against them. Or the French who accept that the Jacobin terror was basically inhumane, I would say also “Bolshevik,” but at the same time, they treat with respect the founders of the French Republic.
In the same manner, one should assess people’s behavior, say, during the Stalin repressions. Not only arrant rogues and worthless people would sign denunciations, but also famous workers of art and science who had achieved worldwide fame in their fields. Should the names of those people and their victims, as well as denunciations they wrote, be made public? I am absolutely against that, I am also against lustrations, opening KGB archives, why should we cause pointless enmity between the grandsons and great grandsons of those people?
In the same way, I think it is pointless to thoroughly examine today who did what during the Kocharyan regime, which, as opposed to the authoritarianism preceding and following it, showed clear tendencies to tyranny and in that sense, was close to the Stalin one. How, say, military prosecutor and then Deputy Attorney General Gagik Jhangiryan or former Minister of Foreign Affairs Vartan Oskanian behaved is important insofar as they play pivotal roles in the opposition camp today and one should understand whether the state will benefit, if they, coming to power, hold their offices in the same manner as they did before. As for how Aram Manukyan, the current leader of the Pan-Armenian National Movement, voted during Kocharyan’s rule is an individual case related to his own conscience, because he was not a decision-maker either in the government or in the opposition, and he will never be. Raising that issue doesn’t solve any problems, except for personal ones.
Read also
In this case, it is pointless to go into the history and cause additional enmity.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
