by Stepan Piligian
I must admit from the very start of this column that participation in the Armenian community is not without conflict and internal stress. Most of our readers will immediately think of the organizational or institutional disagreements that often lead to disputes and the unfortunate exiting of valued individuals.
I am referring, however, to the inner conflicts within ourselves that constitute moral dilemmas. These are much more difficult to resolve since they are based in a values conflict. There are times when our participation in our nation crosses paths with these dilemmas. My own experience has identified two, in particular, that deserve some level of analysis.
Read also
We are a people who have suffered unspeakable horrors over our history. In modern times, the unpunished Genocide has cast a shadow over the inner peace of Armenians who are reminded of the murder of our ancestors and the resulting dispossession on a regular basis. We don’t want to forget. We consider it disrespectful, but it is particularly frustrating when the wheels of justice are slower than a snail. Unresolved crimes lead to stereotypes, anger and even hatred. These are generally unproductive emotions but are human reality.
Wars have been started over such behaviors. As a result, the word “Turk” will usually draw an immediate negative response from nearly all Armenians. Is this productive? Is this morally correct given our Christian foundation? How do we reconcile this dilemma? Another moral crisis has been internal to our community, specifically the relationship of the diaspora with the Republic of Armenia’s policies. For many in the diaspora, the absence of an independent homeland was replaced with pictures of Ararat in our homes, displaying of the tri-color and advocacy. The diaspora carried the burden of Hai Tahd for decades, particularly after 1965.
When Armenia became a sovereign state in 1991, the diaspora readily accepted the additional responsibility to assist in the nation building process. Three decades later, it is no secret that the diaspora has been underutilized, and it is frustrated by the level of progress. The leadership crisis and overt disagreements on policy have only heightened the tension. It is an odd dilemma. Most diasporan Armenians remain very patriotic and openly display their love for the homeland, yet the current policies have created an awkward reality. Should criticism of the government be discouraged or encouraged when there are policy differences? Does our disunity assist our enemies? For years, it was considered inappropriate to be publicly critical, but that was when the stakes were not as high and the relationships had more upside. How do we protect the diversity of thought in our global nation while adding value and stability to the homeland? Is it possible to be critical and strengthen the nation? Improving our behavior on these two issues will impact our effectiveness as a community.
Our relationship with Turks has multiple faces. At the core of our discontent is the lack of justice for the Genocide. The recognition campaign has been very effective with the Armenian Genocide now generally accepted as fact by scholars and governments. The focus has now moved into mandated genocide education in the United States and the very early phases of reparations. The Turks, of course, still deny the Genocide and why shouldn’t they? They have no problem lying since the ramifications are negligible. There has been no military or economic impact to denial. There has been some back door pressure applied which has resulted in an evolution of their position from outright denial to offering empathy for those Armenians killed during the war as “shared pain.” Of course, Turkey is the leader of duplicity with Erdogan offering disingenuous olive branches when it suits his needs and then referring to the diaspora as “remnants of the swords” – an insulting reference to the survivors.
Foreign Minister Cavusoglu has led most of the efforts for normalization but is also notable for flashing the notorious ultra-nationalist racist Grey Wolves hand gesture to Armenian protestors during his visit to South America. Each of these incidents reinforces the longstanding racial intolerance of the Turkish leadership for Armenians and further increases the presence of angry and hate-driven responses.
Yet, at the same time, we proudly profess to be a Christian nation with values rooted in love and forgiveness. I struggle with this and am guilty of emotional reactions to Turkish denial, racism and oppression of Armenians. Intellectually, I understand that anger and hatred offer no value to our sacred cause and that our Christian values should be the mechanism for keeping us balanced. Despite these rational thoughts, we don’t want to relate to anything Turkish despite the fact that most of us know very few Turks and most of our Western Armenian grandparents spoke Turkish (my Adanatzi grandmother spoke Turkish in her home with her brothers and sisters). The frustration with our Turkish “problem” is sometimes used as an excuse for our stereotypes. It should not be. If we are committed to our cause and our faith, then we need to be more disciplined. Our cause needs educated, focused and talented individuals who are not distracted by a few moments of relief by insulting Turks in general. Do we have empathy for the Turks that died in the recent earthquake? Is our faith strong enough that we can pursue our rights without hating a people? I know I always need to remind myself of this risk. We must come to the realization that our cause cannot be fueled by negative emotions because they are incompatible with the skills that will bring us success. One of the reasons that I admire the Aurora Initiative and the Future Armenian is because they are based on looking forward and shedding the victim mentality. This is a therapy needed in our global nation. The absence of ethnocentric thinking does not diminish our mission but refocuses it on results and not “feel good” activity. How many of our people come out on April 24, express their anger and return to political hibernation? There is a clear path of intersection for political activism and our Christian values – maintaining an activist discipline focused on our goals and purging our thinking of hatred. There will be times when we stumble, but our quest for justice and our faith deserve our very best. We can honor our cause and not lower ourselves to their mentality.
The matter of criticizing other Armenian institutions, such as the government of the republic, is often rooted in emotion with a significant presence of power and egos. All democracies need diversity.
Managing the diversity in a civil manner with the nation’s interest at heart is the challenge. Even the most successful democracy in the world, our United States, struggles at times with the partisan chaos in Washington. As has often been stated, democracy can be messy. I was fortunate to learn from mentors that in community or national life criticism should always be accompanied with commitment and solutions. We are raised in the Armenian community to love and respect all things Armenian, yet we find our adult lives consumed with judging others. What about our Christian values in communal life? Is our behavior in our communities exempt from our faith? Why is it so difficult for us to sustain respect? What I find discouraging is our wanton disregard for these principles, as our dialogue becomes about winning the argument with no path for improvement.
Armenian politics currently lack civility with the objective seemingly to knock someone off the pedestal to be replaced by another. Thoughtful objections to current policies should never be discouraged. In the case of the government and its opposition, both parties have a sacred responsibility. Those in power have the responsibility to listen to all their constituents, even those with whom they disagree. Those in opposition have the responsibility to approach the issue with respect for the democratic institutions and to refrain from personal attacks. When a political process is dominated by personalities rather than policy, the focus becomes the individual and subject to rumor and gossip. Unfortunately, neither party today is fulfilling that responsibility.
Given the current crisis, a national unity government with diverse factions would be a bold step to eradicate instability. Armenia must not cede territory, whether that be Artsakh or border regions, without a mandate from the parliament, the courts and even a popular referendum. Armenia may be making commitments beyond the agreement of the citizens, yet these changes can become permanent. Recents polls conducted clearly suggest an estrangement between the government and its citizens on matters of national security. The opposition has few legislative options but claims to have the hearts of the people. If that is true, then where are the people? In 2018 the people rallied publicly against corruption, and it resulted in a peaceful transfer of power. Give former President Sargysyan credit for at least that. The decisions of sovereign territory must be ratified through democratic processes. The absence of such will lead to an eroding of the people’s confidence in our institution. Giving up territory is a very serious decision that cannot be mandated by a few if they expect political stability.
The church has suffered from this perception for years. There is a general feeling that the democratic institutions of the church are a veneer. Authority is very concentrated, and change in a diverse diaspora becomes nearly impossible. Leaders must understand that the base constituency has the final say in their participation. Adherents of the church can simply stop coming, as thousands have done for identity reasons. When the citizens of a nation disagree with its direction yet feel powerless to impact the direction, they become ambivalent. What is the point of sovereignty if it can be so easily bargained and people stop caring?
Despite these difficult choices and painful conflicts, our leadership must be about unifying our small nation, and those seeking change must focus on the “what” and the “how” with less emphasis on “who.” Allowing the moral dilemma to run rampant creates division.
These are a few of the moral dilemmas for each of us. Each comment, action, decision and voice has implications. Governments come and go, but the nation is eternal. Whether we are leading organizations, countries, provinces or municipalities, we are merely the current caretakers. If we are on the outside looking to influence the outcome, we need to maintain civility for answers. The crisis in our nation today is significant. The Turkish alliance is enough for our small nation. We can overcome the distractions and negative impact of our moral dilemmas by subordinating our egos for our future.
