Tweet
ARMENIAN MODEL OF DEMOCRACY
VARDAN BARSEGHYAN
X-X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Listprocessor -Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
June 12, 2008
Armenia
As we know, the PACE is to hold a hearing devoted to Armenia in its
summer session which is going to be convened in a couple of days. Not
only our country's post-electoral situation but also the situation
with democracy in general will become a subject of discussion. In
other words, a discussion will be held around the issue whether
Armenia can be considered a democratic state.
Contradictory assessments are being made on the current state of
the native political system. The radical opposition considers our
political regime anti-democratic; moreover, it insists that the
regime existing in our country is tyranny. The activists who are at
the helm of state or are close to those circles assure us that certain
national peculiarities in the development of the native statehood do
not absolutely rule out its general democratic trend.
On the one hand, it is impossible to deny that our citizens have
incomparably more rights and liberties than do the residents of
classical authoritarian states.
On the other hand, we can't fail to notice the problems related to
the same rights and liberties, the political rivalry, the separation
of the branches of power and other issues.
However, the fact that our country's current political system is not
by any way democratic (with a "plus" or "minus", depending on the
viewpoints) cannot give way to doubts for a person who is more or
less objective.
One may often hear the opinion that democracy in our reality is
controllable. In the meantime, it is often forgotten that democracy,
as a form of state, cannot be uncontrollable at all. What is different
are the means, styles and methods of governing the democratic processes
by bureaucracy - the inevitable product of any statehood. Therefore,
in order to characterize our country's present-day political regime
in an equivalent manner, it is necessary to concretize the type and
level of such governance.
It may seem at first sight, especially in view the existence of the
coalition, that power in our reality belongs to the political parties.
However, it does not quite correspond to the reality. As a matter of
fact, the monopoly of state government belongs to bureaucracy which
consistently strengthens its own positions. And that happens for
several reasons:
First: The feeling of tiredness of the 1990's reforms is still
maintained in society, and a demand for stability is being
observed. And the guarantor of stability has always been bureaucracy
in any place of the world.
Second: The consolidation of bureaucracy. This condition is of utmost
importance for overcoming rivalry and establishing monopoly over
the authorities. The internal conflicts are naturally maintained,
but they are pushed to the background.
Third: The weakness and disruption of the liberal political forces (the
"movement" of the neobolsheviks has nothing in common with the liberal
movement). And the weaker society's resistance against bureaucracy,
the more it becomes prevalent.
As was already mentioned, the existing system of bureaucratic power
should, nonetheless, be considered as a variety of the democratic
regime. At least because such bureaucracy is established through the
expression of the people's will vs. the use of force (regardless the
fact what the revolutionaries say in that connection).
We can't say that bureaucracy reflects the radical interests
of society, but the democratic elite demonstrates an extremely
sensitive attitude towards the moods existing there. For classical
authoritarianism our state government system is like a velvet regime
in which the bureaucratic class strives to safeguard itself against
instabilities. The aggressive state ideology comes to be replaced by
the massive psychology of "enrichment and consummation".
If there's something negative, it is the absence of traditions of
such political rivalry that does not produce an undermining effect on
the foundations of the state. Whoever wins in our reality, receives
everything, and whoever turns out a loser becomes an exile. That's
why the political struggle begins with "battles without rules" and
ends with the scenes of the March 1 events.
So, in order to fill the existing gaps and build a real democratic
state, we need time. Even the United States which is truly considered
the lighthouse of democracy had to pass a long way to achieve that. And
the liberties were formed from the bottom layers of society. Only
in the 6th decade of the XX century did the human rights movement
achieve a true equality of rights for the black under the leadership
of Martin Luther King.
In other word, democracy is a process, a struggle which requires a
great patience. There are neither licensed solutions nor prescriptions
of drugs with a speedy effect.
VARDAN BARSEGHYAN
X-X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Listprocessor -Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
June 12, 2008
Armenia
As we know, the PACE is to hold a hearing devoted to Armenia in its
summer session which is going to be convened in a couple of days. Not
only our country's post-electoral situation but also the situation
with democracy in general will become a subject of discussion. In
other words, a discussion will be held around the issue whether
Armenia can be considered a democratic state.
Contradictory assessments are being made on the current state of
the native political system. The radical opposition considers our
political regime anti-democratic; moreover, it insists that the
regime existing in our country is tyranny. The activists who are at
the helm of state or are close to those circles assure us that certain
national peculiarities in the development of the native statehood do
not absolutely rule out its general democratic trend.
On the one hand, it is impossible to deny that our citizens have
incomparably more rights and liberties than do the residents of
classical authoritarian states.
On the other hand, we can't fail to notice the problems related to
the same rights and liberties, the political rivalry, the separation
of the branches of power and other issues.
However, the fact that our country's current political system is not
by any way democratic (with a "plus" or "minus", depending on the
viewpoints) cannot give way to doubts for a person who is more or
less objective.
One may often hear the opinion that democracy in our reality is
controllable. In the meantime, it is often forgotten that democracy,
as a form of state, cannot be uncontrollable at all. What is different
are the means, styles and methods of governing the democratic processes
by bureaucracy - the inevitable product of any statehood. Therefore,
in order to characterize our country's present-day political regime
in an equivalent manner, it is necessary to concretize the type and
level of such governance.
It may seem at first sight, especially in view the existence of the
coalition, that power in our reality belongs to the political parties.
However, it does not quite correspond to the reality. As a matter of
fact, the monopoly of state government belongs to bureaucracy which
consistently strengthens its own positions. And that happens for
several reasons:
First: The feeling of tiredness of the 1990's reforms is still
maintained in society, and a demand for stability is being
observed. And the guarantor of stability has always been bureaucracy
in any place of the world.
Second: The consolidation of bureaucracy. This condition is of utmost
importance for overcoming rivalry and establishing monopoly over
the authorities. The internal conflicts are naturally maintained,
but they are pushed to the background.
Third: The weakness and disruption of the liberal political forces (the
"movement" of the neobolsheviks has nothing in common with the liberal
movement). And the weaker society's resistance against bureaucracy,
the more it becomes prevalent.
As was already mentioned, the existing system of bureaucratic power
should, nonetheless, be considered as a variety of the democratic
regime. At least because such bureaucracy is established through the
expression of the people's will vs. the use of force (regardless the
fact what the revolutionaries say in that connection).
We can't say that bureaucracy reflects the radical interests
of society, but the democratic elite demonstrates an extremely
sensitive attitude towards the moods existing there. For classical
authoritarianism our state government system is like a velvet regime
in which the bureaucratic class strives to safeguard itself against
instabilities. The aggressive state ideology comes to be replaced by
the massive psychology of "enrichment and consummation".
If there's something negative, it is the absence of traditions of
such political rivalry that does not produce an undermining effect on
the foundations of the state. Whoever wins in our reality, receives
everything, and whoever turns out a loser becomes an exile. That's
why the political struggle begins with "battles without rules" and
ends with the scenes of the March 1 events.
So, in order to fill the existing gaps and build a real democratic
state, we need time. Even the United States which is truly considered
the lighthouse of democracy had to pass a long way to achieve that. And
the liberties were formed from the bottom layers of society. Only
in the 6th decade of the XX century did the human rights movement
achieve a true equality of rights for the black under the leadership
of Martin Luther King.
In other word, democracy is a process, a struggle which requires a
great patience. There are neither licensed solutions nor prescriptions
of drugs with a speedy effect.