Tweet
LESSONS OF "PEOPLES' LEADERS" OR HOW KARABAKH WILL ELECT PRESIDENT
Melik Avanyan
Lragir.am
29 Aug 06
The question of election of a new president of Nagorno Karabakh
in 2007 stirred the public and political life in this country,
which has not been recognized yet. As it could have been expected,
this important problem has given rise to peculiar moods among the
government and the public. The NKR public, used to making their own
decisions since the very first days of the Karabakh movement, became
less alert in the post-war years having gone through the difficulties
of war. Decision making on important issues for the state went to a
narrow circle of leaders and the government of Armenia.
This produced its consequences. The reality of the unrecognized
republic began irritating people, who had paid such a high price
for their freedom. Many began to realize that if this reality
does not change, their country may lose its future. With regard to
this there are different opinions, and the reasons for problems are
evaluated differently. There is a question, however, which is accepted
unanimously: the society must form government. The time of passive
waiting for "miracles from the outside" is over.
Therefore, everyone is concerned about the election of the new
president. What can be more crucial than this fact. The present
president appears not to accept the reality - it is somewhat
unusual. It is possible to understand him. Very few people around are
able to divide the public life from the private life. Everyone is used
to viewing public life through their I. This is the problem of all
the post-Soviet societies. "Who needs the success of the state if I am
not the leader," thinks everyone who has had the opportunity to rule.
This is not the biggest problem of the situation, however. In one or
two months President Ghukasyan will realize that he has to quit. The
next president will be elected, and the country will go on. The
biggest problem is the Karabakh society. Public problems have become
complicated, and their rational perception does not keep up with the
time. Although it is already apparent that the active part of the
society realizes that urgent problems of the time.
The problems that occur in a public debate are given a rational
evaluation. The role of the society in the current situation is also
perceived. The evidence to this is the wish of the public to hold
public debates on the new candidate of NKR president. Public opinion
surveys, online forums and publications show that the society perceives
the current problem rationally.
It appears, however, that there is a lot to tackle with in the
fossilized thinking from the previous years. There are still a
number of people (by the way, quite literate), who have difficulty
understanding the logic of changes, and shift it into plane of "good"
and "bad" leaders. The Soviet ideology is so deeply rooted in the
consciousness of people that it even survived the war. Democratic
reforms are perceived as slogans, not an effective mechanism of
governance, change and settlement of problems.
This circumstance can hinder the advance of the country for a long
time.
Well, the public in Karabakh is not so experienced. It is not easy for
everyone to understand that democrats set forward the idea of election
and terms of office to get rid of the "ballast" that accumulates in
a definite period of governance and anti-social phenomena within the
government and the society. The leaders are changed not because they
are good or bad but in order to clear space for the use of potential
of the public. The change of leader is the only way of change and
improvement of the system of governance. The legal replacement of
an elected person is also a mechanism of getting rid of leaders,
who are not wanted.
Most leaders and their teams know this, therefore they do not want to
quit on time. God be with you, time finds other ways of making them
quit. The opinion of other people is more interesting. For people
who do not perceive this core principal of democracy look for the
cause of trouble in the wrong place. It is evident that changes of
concepts are occurring in a crucial period for NKR. This needs a
scrutiny. The recent speech of Murad Petrosyan, a famous figure in
the society of NKR is notable. It is interesting that as one of the
ardent supporters of the moral and political revival of NKR, in his
interview on TV Petrosyan tried to "revise" the theory of statehood
in the aspect under consideration.
If this were done at another time, or during some seminar, we could
simply argue his opinion. But when the country is facing an election
of a new president, announcing that the change of the president is
not important, it is important that for running a third term Arkady
Ghukasyan needs to carry out a fundamental reform and manpower policy
changes means at least arousing doubts about one's competence.
It is difficult to believe that Murad does not know the real purpose of
Ghukasyan's manpower policy over the past 9 years, especially during
his second term. It is difficult to believe that Murad refers to the
negative manpower policy and social policy as one of the "mistakes"
of Ghukasyan. At least he should know that the manpower policy is a
consequence of a determined action, which proceeded from Ghukasyan's
perception of the state, the government and his role in this state. And
he did not invent anything new compared with his counterparts in the
post-Soviet space. Although he had to invent for the simple reason
that NKR has not reached its major goal - international recognition
and sustainable security.
And now Murad is proposing him in the tenth year of presidency to
invent something to continue his own presidency instead of the state.
Why? There can be a number of opinions. It is also possible that the
puspose and essence of the democratic change of power is not clear to
Murad Petrosyan. He may believe in "good" leaders, and he suggests
that the "bad" ones, whom he says 90 percent of people dislike,
simply become "good" for their personal interests. Here serious
reflection is necessary. I do not think that the problem is only
waiting on President Ghukasyan. The problem is the false belief that
is harmful for psychology. This way of thinking is more harmful for
the state than servility.
There is a story which was placed at the basis of a film. The film
tells about the tragedy of the wife of a Soviet functionary whom the
Commissar of Internal Affairs had forced into sexual slavery. The wife
hang herself after begging her husband for help, for her "devoted
defender" did not understand her. It was a serious incident for the
Soviet times, an "extraordinary incident".
At that time Stalin personally decided to deal with the incident,
visiting the mourning tchekist at home.
After giving his condolences, the leader nevertheless enquired
whether the "soldier" was disappointed with the party's policy. He
said nothing could make him doubt the Party and the Soviet country. At
that time, history says, the great leader said the important words,
"As long as we have people like you, the country has no future."
There is hardly a more educative story which shows the old truth,
"The servant is not superior to the lord". If the tyrant is surprised
at the way of thinking of his "soldier", such a country in fact cannot
have future. Fortunately, we do not have tyrants and "soldiers" in
NKR. However, the dictate of harmful logic and false beliefs is hihgly
dangerous. But I think that this country could have future because
times have changed. Murad Petrosyan's mates can explain him that it is
not appropriate to speak to the public that way, even if one thinks so.
Melik Avanyan
Lragir.am
29 Aug 06
The question of election of a new president of Nagorno Karabakh
in 2007 stirred the public and political life in this country,
which has not been recognized yet. As it could have been expected,
this important problem has given rise to peculiar moods among the
government and the public. The NKR public, used to making their own
decisions since the very first days of the Karabakh movement, became
less alert in the post-war years having gone through the difficulties
of war. Decision making on important issues for the state went to a
narrow circle of leaders and the government of Armenia.
This produced its consequences. The reality of the unrecognized
republic began irritating people, who had paid such a high price
for their freedom. Many began to realize that if this reality
does not change, their country may lose its future. With regard to
this there are different opinions, and the reasons for problems are
evaluated differently. There is a question, however, which is accepted
unanimously: the society must form government. The time of passive
waiting for "miracles from the outside" is over.
Therefore, everyone is concerned about the election of the new
president. What can be more crucial than this fact. The present
president appears not to accept the reality - it is somewhat
unusual. It is possible to understand him. Very few people around are
able to divide the public life from the private life. Everyone is used
to viewing public life through their I. This is the problem of all
the post-Soviet societies. "Who needs the success of the state if I am
not the leader," thinks everyone who has had the opportunity to rule.
This is not the biggest problem of the situation, however. In one or
two months President Ghukasyan will realize that he has to quit. The
next president will be elected, and the country will go on. The
biggest problem is the Karabakh society. Public problems have become
complicated, and their rational perception does not keep up with the
time. Although it is already apparent that the active part of the
society realizes that urgent problems of the time.
The problems that occur in a public debate are given a rational
evaluation. The role of the society in the current situation is also
perceived. The evidence to this is the wish of the public to hold
public debates on the new candidate of NKR president. Public opinion
surveys, online forums and publications show that the society perceives
the current problem rationally.
It appears, however, that there is a lot to tackle with in the
fossilized thinking from the previous years. There are still a
number of people (by the way, quite literate), who have difficulty
understanding the logic of changes, and shift it into plane of "good"
and "bad" leaders. The Soviet ideology is so deeply rooted in the
consciousness of people that it even survived the war. Democratic
reforms are perceived as slogans, not an effective mechanism of
governance, change and settlement of problems.
This circumstance can hinder the advance of the country for a long
time.
Well, the public in Karabakh is not so experienced. It is not easy for
everyone to understand that democrats set forward the idea of election
and terms of office to get rid of the "ballast" that accumulates in
a definite period of governance and anti-social phenomena within the
government and the society. The leaders are changed not because they
are good or bad but in order to clear space for the use of potential
of the public. The change of leader is the only way of change and
improvement of the system of governance. The legal replacement of
an elected person is also a mechanism of getting rid of leaders,
who are not wanted.
Most leaders and their teams know this, therefore they do not want to
quit on time. God be with you, time finds other ways of making them
quit. The opinion of other people is more interesting. For people
who do not perceive this core principal of democracy look for the
cause of trouble in the wrong place. It is evident that changes of
concepts are occurring in a crucial period for NKR. This needs a
scrutiny. The recent speech of Murad Petrosyan, a famous figure in
the society of NKR is notable. It is interesting that as one of the
ardent supporters of the moral and political revival of NKR, in his
interview on TV Petrosyan tried to "revise" the theory of statehood
in the aspect under consideration.
If this were done at another time, or during some seminar, we could
simply argue his opinion. But when the country is facing an election
of a new president, announcing that the change of the president is
not important, it is important that for running a third term Arkady
Ghukasyan needs to carry out a fundamental reform and manpower policy
changes means at least arousing doubts about one's competence.
It is difficult to believe that Murad does not know the real purpose of
Ghukasyan's manpower policy over the past 9 years, especially during
his second term. It is difficult to believe that Murad refers to the
negative manpower policy and social policy as one of the "mistakes"
of Ghukasyan. At least he should know that the manpower policy is a
consequence of a determined action, which proceeded from Ghukasyan's
perception of the state, the government and his role in this state. And
he did not invent anything new compared with his counterparts in the
post-Soviet space. Although he had to invent for the simple reason
that NKR has not reached its major goal - international recognition
and sustainable security.
And now Murad is proposing him in the tenth year of presidency to
invent something to continue his own presidency instead of the state.
Why? There can be a number of opinions. It is also possible that the
puspose and essence of the democratic change of power is not clear to
Murad Petrosyan. He may believe in "good" leaders, and he suggests
that the "bad" ones, whom he says 90 percent of people dislike,
simply become "good" for their personal interests. Here serious
reflection is necessary. I do not think that the problem is only
waiting on President Ghukasyan. The problem is the false belief that
is harmful for psychology. This way of thinking is more harmful for
the state than servility.
There is a story which was placed at the basis of a film. The film
tells about the tragedy of the wife of a Soviet functionary whom the
Commissar of Internal Affairs had forced into sexual slavery. The wife
hang herself after begging her husband for help, for her "devoted
defender" did not understand her. It was a serious incident for the
Soviet times, an "extraordinary incident".
At that time Stalin personally decided to deal with the incident,
visiting the mourning tchekist at home.
After giving his condolences, the leader nevertheless enquired
whether the "soldier" was disappointed with the party's policy. He
said nothing could make him doubt the Party and the Soviet country. At
that time, history says, the great leader said the important words,
"As long as we have people like you, the country has no future."
There is hardly a more educative story which shows the old truth,
"The servant is not superior to the lord". If the tyrant is surprised
at the way of thinking of his "soldier", such a country in fact cannot
have future. Fortunately, we do not have tyrants and "soldiers" in
NKR. However, the dictate of harmful logic and false beliefs is hihgly
dangerous. But I think that this country could have future because
times have changed. Murad Petrosyan's mates can explain him that it is
not appropriate to speak to the public that way, even if one thinks so.