Which however, has not been able to build a normal state
Recently, during the sales at the “Yerevan Mall”, our fellow citizens’ excessively great enthusiasm enabled many people to repeat the traditional formulas, “No, we are not a nation,” “Ultimately, we did not turn to be a nation”, “Were you like that some 30-40 years ago, we have become spoiled lately.” Firstly, during similar actions, all nations behave similarly. Secondly, we were and are a very good nation and one of the European nations.
We are the nation of a European poet, theologian and philosopher Gregory of Narek, whom the Pope Francis recently has declared a Doctor of the Universal Church. Therewith, the Vatican, in addition to referring to the current political matters related to the Centennial of the Genocide, has emphasized which of the direction of civilization we belong. We are the nation of the European poet Yeghishe Charents, the genius who coincidentally, approximately in the same period, together with the representative of another “long-suffering” nation, James Joyce, spoke of a Greek mythological heroine Navzike. (To the point, I think it is time for Armenian writers and researchers address today our two eminent literary figures in a new way and explain to us how interesting they are today, in the second decade of the 21st century, for us and the world. This interest, should be assumed, is beyond “long-suffering).
Nothing has happened to the Armenian nation. Just as to all other nations. Nothing and no one can “spoil” the nation. Or vice versa, “improve”. It’s another question that we have not yet managed to create a modern and developed country, which would correspond to the choice of our civilizational. It has nothing to do with the nation, it is the matter of the citizens of the Republic of Armenia. Let’s not try excusing us, but let us not forget that it is not easy to build such a state. Recall, for example, that still 90 years ago, the teachers in the United States were judged for teaching Darwin’s theory, and 50 years ago, the African Americans in the same country did not have the right to take the seats in the busses designed for the “white”.
Perfection, in short, is and has been nowhere. But let us, however, try understanding what prevents us from building a normal state. I guess a lot of things, but in my opinion, the roots are in wrongly perceived freedom of conscience. Or, if a small quibble is allowed, in releasing the conscience from everything. And this thinking is typical to today’s situation and to previous decades.
Who are fighting for “freedom of conscience”? Basically those, who do not believe in anything and approach this question formally, merely as a question of “human rights” rather than spiritual. Who are fighting against “freedom of conscience”? Those, who believe that they are believers and are afraid that this freedom will harm their religious community. As the Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev wrote – one should first of all have conscience to fight for or against freedom of conscience.
Both in the communist and post-communist Armenia, a delusion is spread out that every step towards freedom automatically assumes freedom from some “bondage”, primarily religious. Today, of course, it is not said directly, on the contrary, the majority nowadays is baptized and weds in the church, but it does not put any additional religious commitment on the people, as a rule. If the person is not sure that, for example, stealing is a sin, if he finds many excuses for it (well, I am keeping a family, well, others also steal and if that one does not steal, I would not also steal, etc.), we would not have our desired government.
It is not that faith and conscience dominates in modern European states. But the role of religion at the time of their formation was tremendous, also in the form of inquisition and Reformation. We have “missed” all of it by objective and subjective reasons. However, it certainly does not mean that we should not build the state on moral grounds.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
