To check the “feasibility” of any ideology in given country requires more or less fair elections. The supporters of this or that ideology should convince the citizens that they will solve the problems that the country is facing, thus obtaining the votes of the voters, and then try to implement these ideas. If these ideas were wrong or failed to be implemented, then the citizens will vote for other ideas and implementers during the next elections. This is the way of the formation of ideologies and political parties in the modern civilized world – passing an experimental period in every electoral cycle. Otherwise, talking about merits and demerits of this or that ideology practically has no sense.
Suppose, in the first half of the 90’s PANM was professing liberal ideas, forming the “Union of Right Forces,” expressing the interests of the “newly established bourgeoisie” and the employers and so on. Theoretically, it is a wonderful project. But to test its effectiveness, it was necessary to obtain the majority of the votes of the voters. As long as it did not happen, neither the Liberals nor the Social Democrats theoretically competing with them, nor the nationalists, nor the public did not realize which ideas are working.
And then, only one principle began working, the principle of the political “jihad”: “leave immediately” – “even if we obtain all 100 per cent, we would not leave.” And it turned out that liberalism practically is as incomprehensible as the “Nzhdehism” and “Taronism.” Of course, you can read books on these subjects, but it is a purely academic occupation. The ideas worth something when they are working. But in 1995, Karamel Harut and Kombiker Vlad were interested in liberalism as much as Shmays and Tokhmakh Mher are now interested in Nzhdehism. It turned out that the liberals are not liberal, the bourgeoisie is not bourgeoisie and the political parties are not political parties.
The same works for the European values. As long as the perception about them is formed based on the Armenian reality and from the debates of allegedly supporters and opponents of these values, they will also be perceived as false and rejected by the majority of citizens. Because there is no aspect to prove their effectiveness. When there is no chance to make a conscious selection, people are guided by instinct, and in this case, people become a mass that can go behind any absurdity and be exposed to (temporarily, of course) the “instructions” of every empty demagogue. The crowd does not need ideas, the crowd needs “jihad”.
Read also
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
