Let’s take another look at our parliament. The scheme of “discussing” issues is quite primitive. The opposition tries to use the words “land-giver,” “capitulator,” and “traitor” at every opportunity, and the government is probably instructed to “go after” the opposition every time such words are uttered, and in some cases to “start a fight with kicking.” If we set aside these ugly external manifestations of the “parliamentary debate,” we can say that this is a reflection of both the current situation in Armenia, about which I have written many times (the voters sent the deputies to the parliament with such a “mandate”) and the trends observed in the world. That is what I would like to touch upon.
Naturally, we are talking about countries from which it is possible to “hunt” different opinions. We do not know what the liberals in North Korea or the critics of Islam in Saudi Arabia think. But in countries where pluralism is not banned by the state, the situation is roughly as follows. When “A” citizen does not agree with “B” citizen, they almost have to say, “You are a zombie or you are sold out. Now I will present facts that will completely crush your point of view, disgrace you, and expose you.” Let me emphasize that we are not talking about deputies, but ordinary people. And, of course, citizen “B” has exactly the same attitude towards “A.” One of the particular consequences of this mutual intolerance is that the two citizens are unable to work or relax together. They cannot sit at the same table, nor can they, say, celebrate September 21 together.
There are two problems here. The first is that people are initially inclined to “crush” and “expose” each other. They are convinced that this dialogue is a “zero-sum game” where one can either win or lose. In that state, they only become enemies and alienate each other. The second problem is deeper.
When a person says, “I will now present facts that will destroy you,” they are convinced that such facts exist. There really are such facts in physical reality. Today, the weather is sunny. If it really is, a sane person will accept it. But there are no such “facts” in social life; any fact comes from our experience, knowledge, temperament, upbringing, education, beliefs, and many other “tools.” Without this breakthrough mechanism, it is impossible to start a normal conversation, especially when you do not see the eyes of your opposition, but you are sitting in front of a computer or phone screen.
Read also
Otherwise, the situation described in Robert Putnam’s book called “Bowling Alone” is created. The American political scientist, of course, talked about the realities in his country, but the situation is more or less the same all over the world. How sad it is to bowl alone!
Aram Abrahamyan
