“I would very much like for you not to have my images in your offices, please. Because the president is not an icon or an idol. The president is not a portrait. Hang the photos of your children in your private rooms and look them in the eyes before making every decision,” was the appeal of Volodymyr Zelensky on May 20, 2019, when he addressed Ukrainian officials during his inauguration. Today, three and a half years later, that request of the President of Ukraine is valid. And there is no portrait of him in the private rooms of bureaucrats. That is, no one thinks of pampering him and engaging in idolatry.
Zelensky, in my opinion, deserves respect. Although, I understand that Ukraine is an ally of Turkey and Azerbaijan in many issues, and the officials of that country, for example, the adviser to the president, Alexey Arestovich, take a pro-Azerbaijani position during the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflicts. However, it is impossible not to respect a head of state who, of course, with the very active and large-scale support of Western partners, is able to organize resistance to Russian aggression.
But I want to return to portraits (statues, tombs) of the head of state, because for me it is a symbol defining political culture. I think it is a test to determine whether the given country is still post-Soviet (Asian) or has taken the path of civilized development. In the first case, the president or the prime minister has uncontrollable power, and the parliament and the courts are just a decoration, a tool to blow dust in the eyes of the democratic West. You cannot say, for example, that everything in Georgia is decided by Irakli Gharibashvili. And even about Ukraine, although that country is waging a heavy war, it cannot be said that Zelensky’s power is unlimited. And in the case of unlimited power, the need to pamper the boss arises.
The latest, most recent example. At the session of the Armenian National Assembly on September 14, when the fighting was still going on, what were the Civil Contract deputies talking about: Aliyev’s, Erdogan’s, Putin’s policies? No, their concern was to upset the opposition and protect their “king” from all kinds of inconveniences. Failure to protect, like not sobbing at the leader’s funeral in North Korea, is fraught with dangerous consequences. Witness the fate of Hayk Marutyan. Naturally, you may ask, how did it happen that Azerbaijan with a hard authoritarian regime was able to defeat Armenia, a country of soft authoritarianism?
Read also
The answer is that Azerbaijan does not need any democracy or separation of powers to solve its problems. That country has oil, which provides a more or less bearable life for its citizens, and on the other hand, a powerful ally, Turkey, which in many cases does business for Azerbaijan, first of all, of course, in the military sphere. Azerbaijan does not need the participation of its citizens to solve the fatal problems of the country. Authoritarianism, in contrast to democratic and totalitarian systems, encourages citizenry and emigration. Since we have neither oil nor allies, we need active citizens who know what they stand for and what they are fighting for.
Aram Abrahamyan
