Constantly recurring situations in Armenia, social problems that for more than two decades are insoluble, political constant rhetoric and the practice: Brezhnev-stagnant by the government, and aggressive-revolutionary by the opposition, all of this underlies to think that it is necessary to seek for more fundamental, more principle solutions rather than those suggested by the current political elite. Perhaps, there are naïve people who believe the type of talks – “be a little patient, it will be good,” or, “should we come, it will be good”. This can also be attributed to our credulity. All political players have already managed to come to a round and leave. It has never happened that all of them have displayed “good” (in the sense that people expect). And it will never happen as long as: a/ we have not reasserted our desire to have an independent state, b/ we have not decided in what kind of country we want to live.
If the answer to the first question is negative, then further judgments are meaningless. It makes no difference whom the Kremlin will appoint as a government official, or who will go to Moscow to offer his services. I wonder why the majority of our people, in this case, demand the government officials of Armenia to “take a good care of them”. Refer to Putin with all your domestic problems with an open letter.
If you do not know how to do it, ask Zori Haykovich, he has an extensive experience in this. If the answer to the first question is yes, then the problem becomes more complicated. In this case, there should be some kind of ideology, which underlies the state. And here, we have the very shortage of ideas. One of our main shortcomings is that the only ideology that has happened in the Armenian reality, whose formulations and “codes” are used by nearly all our political forces, publicists, commentators, etc., is the ideology for the national liberation struggle. Take any text that is spoken into a microphone or written at any platform, you will definitely meet the following formulations there: “critical moment”, “devoted”, “survivors of the nation”, “internal Turks,” “fight,” “struggling,” “movement” and so on. With these “codes”, the figures of all camps convey their speech to the people. The latter, today, is ready to perceive these very formulations.
In early 1990’s, PANM, in its honor, was trying to develop the political idea in a different direction. But the war began, which almost compelled the aforementioned ideology. And after 1994, no longer an attempt was made to change anything in this respect. Still, nothing is done. But everything, of course, is still to come.
Read also
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
