Ruben Vardanyan, evolutionary visionary, Co-founder of the Aurora Humanitarian Initiative, UWC Dilijan, FAST, International School of Leadership and Professional Development “Matena” and other projects.
Part 7
Read the beginning here
I am convinced that following the defeat in the recent war, our vision of Armenia and Armenians in the 21st century has become a pressing issue. Depending on the model chosen for the country’s development, each of our problems—whether it is the settlement of the Artsakh crisis, international relations, or even relations with our own Diaspora—will have various options for a long-term solution. In my opinion, discussing our future will be groundless and futile without answering a number of questions, in the first place:
Read also
- What kind of society do we want to build: open or closed? What are the pros and cons of each model?
Today’s Armenia as a capsule state is in decline. Without a generous ‘sponsor,’ a breakthrough is highly unlikely for us.
The model of existence prevailing in Armenia now can be defined as a “capsule,” a closed country, minimally involved in the global community and focused on its own conservation (typically, stemming from a conscious choice of political elites). Armenia is a capsule backed by Russia. However, the 2017 signing of the EU-Armenia Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) ushered in new prospects for us. The capsule (correlating with the course of isolation) certainly contributes to the preservation of national identity and monoethnic composition of the population and can be successful if one can build a reliable security system, independently attract the necessary material resources, and create a favorable environment for ensuring economic and social prosperity.
Today’s Armenia as a capsule state is in decline. Without a rich and generous ‘sponsor,’ overcoming it is highly unlikely for us, much less a breakthrough. It begs two questions. First, can we build relations with our current ‘sponsor’ (Russia) so that we could turn the capsule into a prosperous and safe isolated and closed country for ethnic Armenians, a country which Armenians do not want to leave in search of a better life and which, on the contrary, can become a magnet for the Diaspora? Second, can our capsule have another ‘sponsor’ or an extra one? By the way, the sponsor of the capsule should not necessarily be another state: for example, Israel, besides the United States, is funded by the global Jewish diaspora.
Hub countries such as Singapore thanks to the accumulation of special competencies and skills amassed a huge creative potential.
Photo credit: Internet resource
Myself and like-minded people are proponents of a ‘glocal’ future for Armenia and a hub model, that is, its full-fledged, albeit not reckless, integration into the global community. A hub country is a state with a small territory and a small population, but thanks to the skillful choice of the developmental trajectory and the accumulation of special competencies and skills, it amasses a huge creative potential. The states that once chose the hub model managed to make breakthrough advances and catch up with or even surpass developed nations. This was the case with Singapore, which turned from a poor port city into one of the most advanced economies in the world.
I prefer the hub model, but like any other model, it has its drawbacks.
Like any other model, the hub model has its advantages and drawbacks. Deep involvement in global processes will accelerate the movement toward prosperity, opening access both to the resources of the Diaspora and to direct foreign investment. There are also pitfalls associated with this model. To a large extent, they are explained by joining the international community, which will make global problems even more pressing. We must also be aware of the fact that abandoning isolation inevitably involves fiercer competition, for which we are not yet ready. This should be accompanied by the accelerated development of the institutions of civil society. Apparently, such a transition will not come easy. Although the likely increase in income seems to be a crucial factor, one must also remember about security, and not just at the borders but also within the country. Preserving the ethnocultural community once Armenia is open to the outside world should be imperative. Besides, we should try to minimize the emerging risks. There is nothing wrong with being proud of ourselves, knowing our history and culture, but we also have to learn to accept other cultures whose representatives will want to come to Armenia to live here and do business together with us, like the Yazidi and Russian communities in our country.
You can learn more about the advantages and limitations of various models and development vectors from my discussion paper titled At the Crossroads, co-authored with Nuné Alekyan.
- How do we want to live: obeying the law or observing a vague unwritten code? What does each of the options mean?
An extremely sensitive aspect of any model of existence is the idea of justice, that is, written and unwritten laws that determine the norms of behavior in society, as well as formal and informal institutions that ensure compliance with these laws. History offers examples of communities that successfully existed and developed without political institutions. However, human communities cannot exist without a judiciary, legal regulators, and generally accepted norms of behavior.
The centuries-old existence in non-legal states has instilled in us the habit of living according to the unwritten laws, as opposed to the enforced ones.
In the early 1990s, it was a popular notion in the Republic of Armenia, as in other post-Soviet states, that a multi-party system and universal suffrage would automatically ensure the supremacy of law and a fair court system. At this time, great efforts were made to create a regulatory framework for the young state. However, we faced two unexpected ramifications. First, the formal consolidation of the democratic principles of statehood and universal suffrage, as well as the new legal framework, does not lead to the rule of law in public life by default. Second, the centuries-old existence in non-legal states has instilled in us a classic doublethink: the habit of living according to the unwritten laws, as opposed to the Constitution and current laws. Hence the current prevalence of the criminal and semi-criminal code of unwritten principles. Another noteworthy factor is that because the imperial laws (Ottoman, Russian, and then Soviet) were perceived as alien, imposed from the outside, the ability to circumvent them was considered a kind of valor, a sign of intelligence and ingenuity. In the newly independent Armenia, eradicating this stereotype turned out to be a toll order.
It is necessary to restore the prestige of the professions of teachers, doctors and military people in the Armenian society. Naira Hovakimyan, professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (USA).
Photo credit: Personal archive
The inevitable implication of abiding by an unauthorized code is pervasive small-scale corruption. Those multiple instances when it was ubiquitous in Armenia are still a recent memory for many. Any employee endowed with any powers, whether a low-level official, policeman, doctor or a teacher—could demand additional material incentives for their services. Moreover, people were often willing to offer ‘remuneration’ for the prompt solution to an important problem or for a reduction in the penalty in case of minor offenses.
The basis of corruption gets eroded once the legislation and legal framework underpinning the operations of the state apparatus are improved, its transparency is boosted, and the interaction between civil servants and society is institutionalized. It is important to bear in mind that you cannot stamp out corruption only by laws and efforts of law enforcement agencies: you need to change the extractive system, which finds reliable support in “invisible institutions”—cultural and behavioral stereotypes—and in prohibitive attitudes embraced by the majority.
Present-day Armenian society needs clear moral guidelines, and teachers, doctors, military people, and varpets should again become role models.
Whether culture predetermines the nature of political and economic institutions—extractive or inclusive—or, on the contrary, established institutions change cultural matrices is a difficult question. Either way, it is safe to assert that the institution of culture and other social institutions influence each other and evolve together. That is why it is necessary to eradicate the above-mentioned relics of the post-imperial cultural matrix, to rehabilitate the value of personal reputation, and to restore respect for education, work, and professionalism. Present-day Armenian society needs clear moral guidelines, and teachers, doctors, military people, and varpets (virtuoso masters) should again become role models.
The supremacy of law is interconnected with security: in a state based on the rule of law, citizens are not afraid of arbitrariness in all areas of life. However, effective security structures and an independent judiciary and legal system alone are not enough to change things. The law should not be exercised selectively, in the interests of the elite, but equally for all citizens. A person is sensitive to injustice, especially when it comes to their property and civil rights. Lawful violence is a necessary condition for the existence of any state, but the legitimacy of the state itself must be secured by the inclusiveness of its institutions and by the general understanding that there is no room for discrimination against citizens who do not belong to the elite or are distant from it.
The legitimacy of the state must be secured by the general understanding that there is no room for discrimination against citizens who do not belong to the elite.
- What role does the church play in modern Armenian society?
Rector of the Tatev Monastery, Archimandrite Mikael Gevorkyan.
Photo credit: IDeA ©
Acknowledging the supra-ethnic nature of Christianity, the Armenians nonetheless succeeded in establishing an independent church. The Armenian Apostolic Church has become the moral core of ethnic communities, a repository and source of knowledge, a breeding ground for enlightenment and education. For centuries, our church has remained the only stable institution on which the nation could unconditionally rely in its development. During long periods when Armenians did not have their own statehood, the church performed some functions of the state, in particular, managing foreign policy, but still it could not replace the state as a full-fledged institution that ensures the consensus of the elites. The church has encouraged the Armenians not to assimilate, and its cultural significance can hardly be overestimated. Today it still has to serve as a centerpiece of national spirituality and a consolidating core, but the church, apparently, cannot cope with this.
We are facing a serious challenge: how do we protect our religious traditions in the face of ongoing global secularization?
To be continued