It is possible to make long lists of the faults of the first three leaders of Armenia; if the opportunity arises, we will remember them. But are they truly comparable to losing a portion of the homeland and the lives of thousands of young people, which the fourth leader is to blame for? Any citizen who does not live in a fantasy world full of prejudices but in reality needs to answer that question. The reality is that after the first three leaders, Armenians had 12,000 square kilometers of Artsakh, but after Pashinyan, they only had 3,300 square kilometers, and that is only due to the presence of the Russian peacekeepers. No amount of rhetoric, accusations, or demagoguery can change this historical fact. Against the background of this reality, the cooperation of the previous leaders, about which first President Levon Ter-Petrossian spoke openly, is not unexpected for me.
If there is a politician in Armenia who is absolutely indifferent towards what others will think about what they say and do (and whose indifference grows with time), that is Levon Ter-Petrossian. I wouldn’t say that this is only an advantage; it is just as much of a flaw. Most likely, you must be liked by certain groups in politics. I am simply speaking about the characteristics of that individual. But the issue here is not the individual, but their mentality.
From this perspective, it is useless to discuss whether Ter-Petrossian’s suggestions are realistic or not, right or wrong, and ethical or not. The message is what’s important, and its audience is not only the former presidents, but all of society. And I believe that the message is clear; in the face of imminent danger, even the most uncompromising opponents must unite, taking into account that danger, and all kinds of personal ambitions must be forgotten. One can, of course, use the opportunity to “scrub” the first president from one side or the other and thus gain political dividends, or perhaps “gain followers” in the government. But only one question is important: which approach will win- state thinking, or impudent-populist, irresponsible behavior?
Now is the time for those who shout, who “put people in their place”; they are the ones who get applause, “likes,” and even votes. It may seem strange, but it seems to me that in the early 1990s, society had a much more state-oriented mindset, which gave us an advantage over the opponent. I have thought a lot about the reasons and I do not have an exhaustive explanation for it. My initial hypothesis is that in the Soviet upbringing so criticized by us, some values were introduced that were oriented towards “state-building,” sometimes contrary to the ideology cut off from the life of that time. Those values included harmony, care, and unity, much unlike today’s “like-gathering” selfishness, inflicting pain upon others, and the mania of trying to establish oneself at the expense of others.
Read also
I want to be optimistic and believe that this mania is only temporary.
Aram Abrahamyan
