In 1988, there were some bright PANM members and hound Communists, in the mid-90s, there were bright ARF and NDP members and hound PANM members and in early 2000s, there were bright Geghamyan- and Demirchyan-followers and hound Kocharyan-followers. Now, there are bright ANC members (or the “non-camp”) and hound Serzh-follower. There were always “sold intellectuals”, often also “pocket parties” next to the hounds. In this case, bright people say ‘no’ to the Constitutional amendments, while the hounds say “yes.”
I do not know, maybe this is the logic of the political fight that requires clarifications at every moment: insiders-outsiders, ours-yours, black-white. To the point, the white are the “people” whose earthly “emanation” are the bright party members while all the rest are the embodiment of evil. Next to the carriers of this “camp” psychology, perhaps, should stand the “non-political” who would try not fit into this simplistic scheme and in addition to seeing this endless fight for “good and evil”, they would seek also other tones.
I personally think that, first of all, our minor “ego” strived to such conflict, which requires the “I”- “not I” contrast where it is necessary to win, overturn and prove your own “truth”. Hereafter, I think people should not be tied in “small bundles” and ignore their personal differences. Do you remember the film “Kin-dza-dza!”, where the residents of an unknown planet had a small panel, with which they were determining the “color” of the person and accordingly, his place in the society.
Ultimately, dividing people by camps and thus hitting against each other also has negative practical consequences. If you shot in somebody’s face that he is sold and is a regime servant, in other words, is from the camp of scoundrels, then it is quite possible that he would be offended and would not wish to have any deal with you, and if there will be a need to implement a joint project, he will not wishes doing it. Switching from confrontation model to a cooperation model, in this case, is quite difficult.
… In one of his novels, Vladimir Nabokov described a man who was making judgments about global politics as follows: “His created world was becoming somewhat limited, free of humor, impersonal, and a collection of abstract bullies. And the more he saw brain, guile and prudence in their mutual actions, the more this world was becoming stupid, more vulgar and more simplistic.” This is the world created by the politicians.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
