There Are Only the Interests of Different Groups That Need to Be Balanced
Reject the Declaration of Independence—the foundation of the Third Republic. Reject Artsakh as Armenian land. Reject the anthem, the coat of arms, the necessity of recognizing the Genocide, even the biblical Mount Ararat. And at the same time, declare that all “isms” are lies—only to then conclude that this very rejection is, in fact, an ideology, one that was supposedly “created by the people.” What do we call this?
“People-ism”?
I agree that there is an ideology at play here. But like all ideologies, it did not emerge from below, from the depths of “the people’s thinking.” It is, like any other ideology, a set of spiritual, intellectual, and political constructs developed by a particular group, beneficial to that group, and then presented as “universal,” “national,” or “popular.” Once established, this ideology is propagated— or, to use a more precise term, indoctrinated.
Read also
German psychologist Erich Fromm, in his field of expertise, observed the irrational nature of all ideologies:
“The more an ideology claims to provide non-contradictory answers to all questions, the more attractive it becomes. This, perhaps, explains why even irrational or outright absurd ideas can gain such strong appeal.”
This claim of universality—the desire to provide answers to all questions—is characteristic of all ideologies. It was especially evident in the 1930s, as seen in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (which Fromm primarily had in mind). In this sense, irrationalism is undeniable.
But does this mean that ideologies should be rejected outright (“no ism”), or that there should be only one “people’s ideology,” where those who do not subscribe to it are deemed “not part of the people”?
What, exactly, are we being told in the name of the people? Essentially, that every Armenian statehood project throughout history was not truly Armenian, but the creation of foreigners—“colonizers.” By this logic, the Third Republic was also not Armenian but rather imposed by the Russians, particularly in terms of protecting Artsakh. And now, after the 2020 defeat—thanks to it, they say—the time has finally come for a “real Armenia.”
Whose interests does this notion serve? Naturally, the ruling group, which believes that this false narrative legitimizes its own arrogance and reckless decisions.
On the other hand, does such an approach have the right to exist? Absolutely. It is not the only correct or popular ideology—it is simply one among many.
Broadly speaking, there are three ways to approach any issue:
Dogmatism, where people claim there is only one Truth, a world of black and white.
Skepticism, which tries to escape this trap by declaring that everything is relative and that distinguishing truth from falsehood is impossible.
The critical approach, which neither rejoices nor despairs but seeks to understand things together.
The way we perceive our history and state-building efforts reflects not only who we are but also, in some ways, the nature of those projects themselves.
Choose the approach that speaks to you.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
