People with no special interest can debate on fundamental matters
English writer Gilbert Keith Chesterton, once, had said, “The thing I hate about an argument is that it always interrupts a discussion.” They are truly two different things. There is some kind of supplement in the debate, a harmony, it is aimed at elimination of contradictions at a higher level, a “subtraction”, Aufheben, we use Hegel’s terminology. Debate does not suggest harmony and a higher level, on the contrary, it breaks down the controversies making them more domestic and petty bourgeois. A classic example of debate is the “pro-Slavonic” and “pro-Western” debate in Russia, in the 19th century, which, as you understand, is relevant as of today, too.
Chaadayev and Tyutchev not only respected each other, moreover, they agreed on many issues, and their dispute, ultimately, represents the two sides of the medal of reality and Russian political thought at a higher level. The same is true in our reality. In the second half of the 19th century, the liberal “Laborer” and the conservative “Bee” were arguing with each other. Naturally, the first one is closer to me, but can we stick the label of “national” to one and “denational” to the other. Can we claim that the “Laborer” was against preservation of national values, whereas the “Bee” was indifferent to the idea of freedom of people? That is what I mean by saying that there should be some kind of harmony in the dispute, a sense of unity.
Having such sense in internal political disputes, of course, is quite difficult. Here, above all, the economic interests of various groups are clashed, and there are groups of advocators who operate for servicing these interests, which definitely argue with each other, disgrace and insult each other, and so on. This is already wrangling. As media, we refer to it, and as a citizen, I am not interested in this wrangling. Generally, the more heated is the debate, the more, of course, is more interesting. The more personalized is the debate and spiced with “compromising evidences” of personal nature, the more uninteresting for me, because to find out which one of the arguing parties is perfect is a meaningless business. Which of us is perfect.
The debate of politically interested people, the advocators, is typical to all more or less developed countries. Our Eurasian “broths”, as well as in the Middle East, Cuba and North Korea, it is practically missing, for obvious reasons. But in more developed countries than ours, in the West, in addition to propaganda, there is also a higher level of debate. It still is not purely academic, but, on the other hand, nor at the “momentary”, “Poghos is good, whereas Petros is bad,” “well, who are you to say something about Poghos,” “well, who are you?”
Let me bring an example of our reality. In Armenia, I am sure, there are people who are quite educated, established and independent, who are indifferent of who will win: RPA or the PAP. (Personally, I think that the “RPA-PAP” system is designed to maintain the current situation rather than to change something, but this is a separate topic). Probably the above -mentioned people who do not have special interests can discuss more fundamental issues rather than who, whom and when will be replaced today, tomorrow or in 2017-2018. Specifically, I’m interested in the following question whether our country is in principle possible to upgrade, first and foremost, spiritually, culturally, and then, as a consequence, politically and economically. Like in the 20th century, Kemal’s Turkey, Saakashvili’s Georgia, and a number of countries in Southeast Asia and Latin America were upgraded. Saying “like,” I do not mean to repeat the path of the above-mentioned countries, I am talking about their recorded qualitative changes and breakthrough development. That, I think, is not an idle question. Because the contacts with “people” sometimes lead me to a negative answer.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
