One of the most notorious statements attributed to the first president of independent Armenia was his assertion that national ideology is a false construct. Likewise, the individual who currently holds the position of prime minister in the Republic of Armenia expressed a similar sentiment at the beginning of his tenure, albeit with slightly different wording, stating that they do not subscribe to any “ism.” It is evident that “ism” implies any political or national ideology.
Three possible reasons could be cited for Ter-Petrosyan’s stance. Firstly, as the first president, he was a proponent of the liberal current that contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Within the USSR, liberals viewed the demise of communism as the conclusion of the era of ideologies. According to them, liberal democracy had unequivocally triumphed globally, and any alternative ideology would inevitably result in authoritarianism or totalitarianism. This was a prevailing belief in the world or constituted the “mental trend” of the period.
The second possible reason behind Ter-Petrosyan’s stance was the opposition posed to his party, the Armenian National Movement, the primary adversary of Ter-Petrosyan’s party. This opposition stemmed from the Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutyun, whose ideology centered on nationalism and the Armenian cause. Consequently, Ter-Petrosyan’s stance not only aimed to refute such ideology but also to actively oppose it. This rationale was grounded in the dynamics of internal political strife.
The third reason was the foreign political conjuncture. Armenia’s ally was the liberal West and Yeltsin’s Russia. The main competitor of the latter were the remnants of the Communist Party and nationalist-military circles. In Russia, as in Armenia, it was also the logic of the internal political struggle, and that struggle was going on very violently and harshly. It is natural that he had to deal with foreign “allies” on the same field.
Read also
In his discussion of “isms,” the leader of the incumbent regime implied that “democracy” had already prevailed in Armenia. He referred to the “velvet” revolution led by him, suggesting that the “democratic” West should have supported Armenia under his leadership and any ideology can be portrayed as a manifestation of authoritarianism. Furthermore, considering that the collective West, under the leadership of the United States, had declared a “democratic front” against authoritarianism and extended an invitation to Armenia to participate in the global democratic forum, this sentiment was reinforced.
Thus, ideological struggle in Armenia (even without “isms”) is waged primarily by the Civil Contract Party, along with its pseudo-liberal and anti-national satellites. It is true that they are primitive and anti-state, but still they endeavor to establish a foundation for political thought within their regime. However, even such coherent thinking is absent within the opposition wing. Instead, they attempt to provoke public sentiment with accusing the authorities of “land surrender,” “treachery,” “capitulation,” “ignorance,” and “insanity.”
It appears that the rejection of ideologies and avoidance of “isms” are more prevalent among opposition parties and movements.
Political struggle entails a clash of thoughts and ideas, essential for forces advocating an alternative to the current government. Ideas themselves wield significant influence, serving as the basis for like-minded individuals to coalesce, develop appropriate platforms and rally public support.
ACNIS (The Armenian Center for National and International Studies)