On September 25, 1996, the National Democratic Union members led the crowds dissatisfied with the election results to the parliament and as a result the National Assembly President and Vice Speaker were beaten. The next day, the ruling party MPs apparently beat their oppositional colleagues during a parliamentary session on a live broadcast to “collect scores”. On the following days, people facing me on the street were talking to me, “did you see what the Armenian National Movement members did? How could they even beat MPs during the session?”. What had preceded it, no one really cared. True, no one was talking about “the right to revolt” that time yet, but beating the parliament leaders was considered normal.
In the same way, beating the Head of the Communist Supreme Council Hrant Voskanyan in 1990 was considered normal by the ANM and their supporters. I remember once I wanted to convince a woman that beating someone is not a good idea, and she sincerely got angry: “not Voskanyan, but Voskan-oglu, these are all Turks”, and she started to suspect me in supporting Communists. The attitude of the masses towards the power in Armenia has its own peculiarities. As far as I can remember myself (about since early 1970s), it has been so.
And so, the ANM members and their supporters remember the September 25, 1996, while the NDU members and masses of people remember September 26. And whoever remembers and condemns both, they are the worst persons for the both sides: “he keeps changing his mind”.
The same can be stated about almost all the events of our modern history, including the taking over of the police station, or the incident at the City Council session.
There are two types of interpretation of events: populist and official. Both are far from reality, both should be divided into two, and then the two halves of each should be merged together.
Extreme nihilism, lack of civil consciousness are not the fault of the people, those are the fault of the political and intellectual elite, the elite, which is guided not by principles (for instance, rejection of any violence), but with the expediency: sometimes pleasing people, sometimes locking themselves in an official self-contained “castle” detached from life.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
