If we try to single out most frequently repeated key word in our “political thinking” and, it would, certainly, be the “national”. There is a range of concepts, to which attaching the adjective the “national”, one can get, in the opinion of thinkers and publicists, quite new, naturally, very positive quality. “National” can be called the state, progress, political figures, forces, ideology, alliance, mode of thinking, consent, description, goals, strategies, economy and many other things. It is clear that the said magic formulas introduce in it all qualifications, which, in their opinion, the authors of such phrases are endowed, and which are completely missing in the description of the opponents. Here, approximately the following logic functions, according to which a man praising his beloved wife, but not finding appropriate words, exclaims: “Your eyes (eyebrows, lips, hips) are “national”. The only difference is that in the political sphere it is a self-description and self-advertisement.
The adjective “national” does not add anything to the meaning of above-mentioned concepts. The state either exist or not, or is capable to create and develop the institutions that are specific to countries all over the world. The same can be said of any other phenomenon. People either think or do not think. In the first case, they are able to connect the real facts into some logical chain, in the second case, they fall into emotions, instincts or reveries. The boxer either knocks out the opponent, or he appears in this situation. And he needs a lot of training to win, command the technical tricks, be spiritually prepared to get and give strikes. More to give than receive, more to acquire than lose, this is, probably, the problem of any person, state, and the nation.
To the question as to what the “national” in the politics is, two types of evasive answers were given: The first was that “our party has repeatedly proved throughout its history about its being national.” Maybe it is so. But if the topic is about the party, in the authority of which the territories of Armenia became more than two times smaller, then all other words and interpretations are needless. The “national”, you are knocked out with all your qualifications, hence the value of those qualifications is very doubtful.
The second evasive answer was the following: “I do not know what the “national” is, but I can definitely say what “anti-national” is. Such are the people, political parties, politicians, whom I do not like. Such answer also needs separate commentaries.
…Recently, many institutions (such as, the Academy or the Opera) included the adjective “national” in their names. Did such institutions begin to work better after such naming, did their operations become more efficient and in compliance with up-to-the-minute requirements?
What is more appropriate, giving gorgeous titles to public toilets, or to try to establish the cleanliness there?
Aram Abrahamyan
24.05.1995
