A few words in defense of classical liberal values
In the third decade of the 21st century, liberal ideas are fundamentally discredited. Unlike other liberals, I do not think it can be explained only by the fact that some “red-brown,” “anti-Western,” or “backward” forces discredited it. It is also an objective process that began at least in the early 1990s, when on the one hand we “post-Soviet” people believed that by introducing “Western values,” technology, and democracy, we would sooner or later become the United States, France, or Germany. On the other hand, the “Western” people themselves thought or tried to convince us that by going in the “right direction,” we would eventually “reach the West.” It is now clear that this project has failed, and it is time to honestly admit that we will never become Germany by the standards of human welfare, as well as a number of other criteria. Thus, in the 90s, not only communism failed, but also its supposedly “soothing” liberalism.
Since all the projects in Armenia were connected in one way or another to Artsakh, its status, and the settlement around it, it can be said that in 1998 liberalism also failed in that respect. Welcoming the coup d’etat in February of that year, the majority of our citizens expressed their conviction that not only will we never become Germany, but that our relations with Azerbaijan will never be like those of modern Germany and France, which had massacred each other for centuries, but are now normal neighbors. The majority wanted to implement the nationalist (ARF) project, which, however, also failed. And the final defeat did not take place on November 9, 2020, (defeats occur in the history of all states), but on June 20, 2021, when the majority of voters expressed their, to put it mildly, cold attitude towards the Artsakh issue. It remains to be seen what our citizens want. If it is said, “they want there to be no corruption and they want to live well”, then that explanation does not satisfy me. That cannot be the ultimate goal of the state.
But how can we know what our citizens want? This can be understood through dialogue. This is where the liberals come to our aid. But not liberals like Reagan or Thatcher, who, for example, justified the atrocities of the Pinochet region, that the general, with Milton Friedman’s prescriptions of Milton, carried out liberal reforms and allegedly “saved Chile.” Nor do the modern proponents of that current, who have exaggerated “political correctness” and turned it into something like a “communist oath,” while labeling you a racist, Nazi, or sexist in case of any deviations. The classical representatives of this ideological current, in particular the 17th century English philosopher John Locke, can help us with liberalism.
Read also
His main idea is that no government can represent the whole people, something that the supporters of autocracy in all countries do not agree with, in particular, the current government of Armenia and their propagandists. They say, “If the government was elected by the people, then it belongs to the people, and the anti-democratic steps we are taking have already actually received the mandate of the people.”
Liberals (I mean real, classical liberals) say no, such a thing is not possible, the election results can not be an excuse for an authoritarian system, and therefore, there must be constant dialogue between all members of society. What is the platform for that dialogue? First of all, of course, the parliament. But not only that. In the 20th and 21st centuries, such platforms should be civil society institutions, the media, and social networks. Especially with regard to the latter, I strongly doubt that they are really platforms for dialogue, at least in Armenia. In a debate, truth is born only when all its parties want it, and when at least one of the parties is not looking for the truth, but wants to “crush” and “destroy” someone, any dialogue is meaningless, and often also harmful.
There is another precondition. Dialogue takes place only when the government does not speak an authoritarian language. Such language has many manifestations, and the most important of them is the endless search for internal enemies. A typical example. According to one of the pro-government deputies of our parliament (by the way, a former journalist), “there are journalists who are sent to the National Assembly to provoke incidents and to take the information out of the country.” It is nothing but a refusal of dialogue because if journalists come to parliament to spy (that is, presumably to commit a crime), then the media cannot be a platform for dialogue.
If, according to the authorities, there are representatives of “internal enemies,” “fifth column,” and “previous criminal regime,” then, according to authoritarian logic, there should be a Leader, Hero, and Savior who leads the fight against these “dark forces.” Do you know his name?
Aram Abrahamyan
