Tweet
RUSSIAN PAPER COMPARES ARMENIAN PROTESTS WITH EARLIER EVENTS IN GEORGIA, UKRAINE
Gazeta
Feb 28 2008
Russia
[Commentary by Vadim Dubnov: "Personality Revolution" - taken from
HTML version of source provided byISP]
The Yerevan revolution, which is approaching its finale, can be
easily taken for a genetic modification of the samephenomenon that
took place in Tbilisi a little more than four and in Kiev a little
more than three years ago. All thecircumstances seem to be the same:
Shamelessly rigged elections, tens of thousands of indignant people,
and anopposition tribune transforming into a leader. The tents in the
square in front of the Yerevan opera seem to be the sameas those in
Kiev and the only question is what romantic colour should be chosen
for the new revolution.
However, while the Ukrainian orange revolution was far from being
a political clone of the Georgian rose revolution, the Armenian
revolution, regardless of its outcome, is an absolutely unique
phenomenon altogether by modern standards.The triumphant return of a
reformer of the 1990s is not the point. The point is how he is trying
to return.
Armenia, unlike Georgia and Ukraine, is not choosing between particular
foreign policy biases. This issue cannot beseen even "between the
lines" of the masses' revolutionary expectations. The current events
reflect deep confrontation within the regime itself.
Both Saakashvili who had waited in vain until Shevardnadze would
appoint him as the No 1 presidential successor and Yushchenko
and Tymoshenko who had lost an apparatus game, but took revenge
in citystreets were the winners of elite wars that acquired such
enthusiastic forms.
A real unadulterated revolution is taking place in Yerevan. There
are oligarchs there who have something to lose.However, there are
almost no oligarchs who could count on a great post-revolution
redistribution. Other members of theformer 10-year-old elite would
probably want to return, but revenge is not the main and primary
reason for therevolution. No generation hungry for power has grown
up there. The generation that has grown up in Armenia adapted tothe
existing regime quite well.
Briefly then, there is no main component of a colour revolution in
Armenia - a clash of consolidated elites. There isa revolution that
seemed absolutely unnecessary. There is nothing that would betray the
existence of any hiddenmechanisms to which we are accustomed now that
we know what happened in Tbilisi, Kiev, and even Bishkek. Nobody is
even trying to scare people with Soros's involvement. The people in
the square are listening absolutely calmly even tostatements about
democracy, for they realized long ago that it is not for the sake of
democracy that they have beenfreezing outside for a week now.
Everything is black-and-white, just the way it should be amid
revolutionary enthusiasm. Those have come to the squarewho can no
longer tolerate something that, as they have found out, they do not
have to tolerate. Those who have not cometo the square are ready to
tolerate it further. Basically, this is all. The difference between
those people is notgreat. After all, as recently as yesterday, those
who are standing in the square did not even think that the regime
thatis currently being overthrown can no longer be tolerated.
A real unadulterated revolution is virtually spontaneous and Armenia
is almost an ideal illustration. The point isthat if Ter-Petrosyan
had not undertaken his miraculous comeback, the situation that lasted
for 10 years would havepersisted for another 10 years and nobody
would have suspected that the regime was unbearable and everything
could bechanged.
People's opinions about Ter-Petrosyan may differ. One can find his
Karabakh proposals disputable. One canascribe all kinds of negative
traits to him, just as to any politician. However, no other person in
Armenia could havemade the revolution. People's demand for a change
appeared only some time after this alternative became visible.Only
Ter-Petrosyan could start the revolution after his return from the
historic oblivion, a return that is consideredprearranged. He did not
start the revolution from zero. He started from hopeless minus and only
he could transform itinto a plus regardless of what he is going to do
with Karabakh. The intrigue no longer boils to the fact that if mutiny
ends successfully, it acquires a different name. The intrigue boils
down to the fact that when this happens nobody caresabout the fact that
there had been no demand for revolution because it seemed impossible.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Gazeta
Feb 28 2008
Russia
[Commentary by Vadim Dubnov: "Personality Revolution" - taken from
HTML version of source provided byISP]
The Yerevan revolution, which is approaching its finale, can be
easily taken for a genetic modification of the samephenomenon that
took place in Tbilisi a little more than four and in Kiev a little
more than three years ago. All thecircumstances seem to be the same:
Shamelessly rigged elections, tens of thousands of indignant people,
and anopposition tribune transforming into a leader. The tents in the
square in front of the Yerevan opera seem to be the sameas those in
Kiev and the only question is what romantic colour should be chosen
for the new revolution.
However, while the Ukrainian orange revolution was far from being
a political clone of the Georgian rose revolution, the Armenian
revolution, regardless of its outcome, is an absolutely unique
phenomenon altogether by modern standards.The triumphant return of a
reformer of the 1990s is not the point. The point is how he is trying
to return.
Armenia, unlike Georgia and Ukraine, is not choosing between particular
foreign policy biases. This issue cannot beseen even "between the
lines" of the masses' revolutionary expectations. The current events
reflect deep confrontation within the regime itself.
Both Saakashvili who had waited in vain until Shevardnadze would
appoint him as the No 1 presidential successor and Yushchenko
and Tymoshenko who had lost an apparatus game, but took revenge
in citystreets were the winners of elite wars that acquired such
enthusiastic forms.
A real unadulterated revolution is taking place in Yerevan. There
are oligarchs there who have something to lose.However, there are
almost no oligarchs who could count on a great post-revolution
redistribution. Other members of theformer 10-year-old elite would
probably want to return, but revenge is not the main and primary
reason for therevolution. No generation hungry for power has grown
up there. The generation that has grown up in Armenia adapted tothe
existing regime quite well.
Briefly then, there is no main component of a colour revolution in
Armenia - a clash of consolidated elites. There isa revolution that
seemed absolutely unnecessary. There is nothing that would betray the
existence of any hiddenmechanisms to which we are accustomed now that
we know what happened in Tbilisi, Kiev, and even Bishkek. Nobody is
even trying to scare people with Soros's involvement. The people in
the square are listening absolutely calmly even tostatements about
democracy, for they realized long ago that it is not for the sake of
democracy that they have beenfreezing outside for a week now.
Everything is black-and-white, just the way it should be amid
revolutionary enthusiasm. Those have come to the squarewho can no
longer tolerate something that, as they have found out, they do not
have to tolerate. Those who have not cometo the square are ready to
tolerate it further. Basically, this is all. The difference between
those people is notgreat. After all, as recently as yesterday, those
who are standing in the square did not even think that the regime
thatis currently being overthrown can no longer be tolerated.
A real unadulterated revolution is virtually spontaneous and Armenia
is almost an ideal illustration. The point isthat if Ter-Petrosyan
had not undertaken his miraculous comeback, the situation that lasted
for 10 years would havepersisted for another 10 years and nobody
would have suspected that the regime was unbearable and everything
could bechanged.
People's opinions about Ter-Petrosyan may differ. One can find his
Karabakh proposals disputable. One canascribe all kinds of negative
traits to him, just as to any politician. However, no other person in
Armenia could havemade the revolution. People's demand for a change
appeared only some time after this alternative became visible.Only
Ter-Petrosyan could start the revolution after his return from the
historic oblivion, a return that is consideredprearranged. He did not
start the revolution from zero. He started from hopeless minus and only
he could transform itinto a plus regardless of what he is going to do
with Karabakh. The intrigue no longer boils to the fact that if mutiny
ends successfully, it acquires a different name. The intrigue boils
down to the fact that when this happens nobody caresabout the fact that
there had been no demand for revolution because it seemed impossible.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress