A few days after the revolution in the beginning of May, when one of the revolutionaries had already gotten a position in power, a reporter had called him, and before asking questions, asked, “May I call you by your name?” The former revolutionary was even surprised. “Yes, I haven’t changed at all.” But recently, when someone else referred to that official by name, he said, “Perhaps use Mr.?” It may seem like a minor detail, but it is an important one. The expectations that the new officials would carry themselves the same way that the rest of us do, that they would walk with their own feet and travel on the metro and look at us as equals, were not fulfilled (by the way, the same expectations were not fulfilled in the 1990s with the Pan-Armenian National Movement officials).
There are people who enjoy giving orders to their personal chauffeur, secretary, and coat holders, as well as making use of state attributes, despite the fact that they don’t even confess this to themselves. Then there are people who fight against those types of things, who don’t like any sort of hierarchies and ceremonial rules, such as who can sit or stand where or who can speak to the boss for how long. People who are very far away from such things (such as myself) do not last in the state system for long.
But those who stay (regarding these authorities, I believe that the majority has remained for “good reasons”) need to turn on their “self-checking” mechanisms. It is important for authorities to always check themselves: “Am I suffering from a ‘nomenclature illness?’ Do I have delusions of reality?” The largest bait, of course, causes groveling: “You are wise, you’re a genius, even if you hurt me, I won’t doubt your greatness, but allow me to ask you a question. Don’t think that I have something against you. I just want to hear your wonderful voice again.”
Signs of not having a grasp on reality include saying things such as, “The opposition is getting in the way of us creating a bright future,” and “We aren’t against criticism, but it needs to be constructive.” I have heard the same things from authorities for 28 years. But at the beginning of the 1990s, “effective” was used in place of “constructive.”
Aram Abrahamyan
