Withdrawing from it requires a revolution of thinking
Before and after the referendums held in the three marzes, people are arguing over whether it is necessary to consolidate the communities or not. Actually, this problem, in my opinion, has a secondary importance. It will be a village mayor in X village or he will be called differently, whether he will be elected or not, will be a “decoration” under the name of “Council of Elders” or not, they will not affect the real political and economic structure of the communities.
Who is a real village mayor no matter how he is named? He is a man who abusing his position has some tangible advantages over the rest of the villagers, but who, on the other hand, will always extend a helping hand to his fellow villagers, if, of course, he does not have clan hostile relationship with given family or the person. If he is guided exclusively by the law and does not have a benefit from anywhere, then he will be just as poor as the rest of the villagers, and, let’s say, in the case of a funeral or a baptism, someone’ illness or at least something goes out of order in the village, he would be unable to be useful. Do you remember approximately the same to be said about the Mayor Albert Bazeyan, “sitting on the money he is asking for money,” because this mayor was abide by the letter and spirit of the law. The next mayors already knew how to “sit on the money” and were not asking for money any more. I also remember last summer when Erdoğan was elected a president of Turkey, and one of the country’s television stations was conducting a poll on the street, and a woman said, “Yes, Erdoğan is definitely involved in the corruption scandals, but the man has done so much for Turkey that I give my vote to him.” An Eastern mentality.
The village mayor, the city mayor, the oligarch, the bey, the master, the rich MP, the Secretary Regional Committee, the “king” – as it is now in the 21st century, many of the Armenians are calling these people, are standing in the center of political and economic systems in many countries. It is not just a person, it is not even an institute, it is the important part of our thinking, which creates this system. We are ready to forgive these “kings” if they “are doing patriotic activities” – building a church, helping sick children, pay off the “credits” and electricity debts. Or, are simply distributing money during the elections. And we do not forgive the “kings” who “do not care about the people.”
Read also
This was the case, of course, also in Europe, but in the beginning of the 16th century, the Reformation began, while the mature market and non-feudal relations were established only in the 19th century. During these three centuries, there were many wars and revolutions. The principles affected by the Reformation are also effective in the United States, in the end of the 16th century, this territory began to be colonized by descendants of Calvinism having extreme puritan views. The Reformation and Calvinism assumes the opposite, “anti-master”, “anti-king” mentality. The community certainly has a “master”, who coordinates the works, but he, from the beginning, is not endowed by “divine powers”, he is not imposed to “think” about the well-being of the community members, on the other hand, he will not be forgiven for any abuse. The community is self-organized by certain moral principles developed over the centuries.
Are we able to pass the road without wars and revolutions, which Europe passed in about 5 centuries? In theory, yes. But do we want to do it? Here, I highly doubt on this. We, despite our apparent discontent, are accustomed to the feudal mentality and are afraid to change anything here, fearing deep in the heart that perhaps everything would collapse because of these changes. Those who are making calling for a revolution in Armenia, in fact, they want to substitute “unfair, not-caring-about-the-people kings” for “the fair kings.” This, in fact, is not a revolution. The revolution will be when the community will not forgive the thief, no matter how many churches he has built. But coming out of the “feudal comfortable zone” is extremely difficult.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN,
Aravot daily
