Famous Israeli historian and political scientist Yuval Harari was asked during one of his lectures, “What do you think of the post-truth era?” Harari answered approximately, “Your question suggests that humanity has ever lived in the age of truth.”
According to this researcher, people separated from the animal world tens of thousands of years ago, and began to tell each other stories that can be religious, ideological, mythological, national, or something else that do not necessarily reflect reality. These stories are important for people because they unite them and push them to action together. For example, the nationalist “discourse” spread in 19th century Europe, which “localized” Theodor Herzl for his people, was crucial for the formation of Harari’s own country. (By the way, I also consider our own Mikael Nalbandyan a nationalist thinker, but we have not studied his ideas properly).
“Post-truth,” in short, is a situation where what is said about reality is more important than reality itself. And in that sense, we can agree with Harari- it has always been so. “Words” and stories can not be “right” or “wrong;” they can be small and big, superficial and deep, useful and harmful. In today’s Armenia they are small, superficial, and harmful.
Now in our country two types of stories are more widespread, which are reflected in the current National Assembly. The first one was formed during the 2018 revolution (and, of course, was prepared before that) and is called “you are a thief.” This is the pro-Nikol phrase, which is followed by more than 600 thousand citizens. The second story was formed after November 9, 2020, and is called “you are a land-giver.” This is the pro-Serzh/Robert agenda, which is followed by about 250 thousand citizens. The deputies in the National Assembly are fighting to make their speeches louder. The majority wants to consolidate its victory, being sure that not only the voters, but also the majority of the Armenian people want to hear their speech. The minority also voices its thesis, assuming that more than 250,000 people can be gathered around it, and / or that some out of 600,000 will regret it and side with them.
These statements are small because they reflect the narrow interests of these two groups and will not be compared to the ideas of Theodore Herzl or Mikayel Nalbandyan. They are superficial, as they express only a part of the reality and do not try to look at the history of our country and the recent events from a short distance. Finally, they are harmful because they are clearly aimed at dividing our society.
Unfortunately, the voices outside that contradiction are not yet heard. There can be two reasons. Either the alternative ideas have not been formed yet, or the remaining 1.5 million of our citizens (those who did not go to the polling stations and those who did not vote for those three political forces) are also in the “thief/land-giver” paradigm. The second option would be very sad.
Aram Abrahamyan
