Imagine a situation like this: 680,000 people say that they are not interested in the fate of 120,000 people; they say that they are not particularly concerned about the fact that their compatriots can be killed or deported, that the life and well-being of the majority are more important to them than the minority.
That mass of 680,000 has a leader who embodies the aspirations of these people. Whose position is more decisive and, on the other hand, worthy of discussion, the mass or its leader? The answer to that question is obvious: the leader will also change when the mass changes.
Yes, the majority’s opinion is unacceptable to me from an ethical point of view, and it is wrong even from a purely pragmatic point of view. But if I want to change the situation, my main concern should not be the leader. Suppose a person came to power who is sure that the lives of 120,000 people are essential. That would mean that most citizens should be ready for severe hardships to defend that position, including waging war for their compatriots and homeland. But if the majority has a different position, this supposed new government, with its most brilliant ideas, will not achieve any results.
Society can be mobilized under the conditions of totalitarianism and democracy. In one case, by force; in the other, by persuasion. And during an autocracy, when people are constantly told to live as they want, even if they leave the country, as long as they don’t disturb us, the rulers during such a regime, it is impossible to unite the society around any serious issue.
Read also
According to all sociological surveys, the vast majority of RA citizens are against Artsakh being part of Azerbaijan. But it cannot be considered a belief of people in the deep sense of the word. There is an elementary and understandable test to measure the “strength” of a belief: what is a person ready to sacrifice for the sake of that belief: give up a cup of coffee, today’s lunch, job, well-being, or life?
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
