Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

At The Crossroad: Between Dignity And Instinct Of Self-Preservation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • At The Crossroad: Between Dignity And Instinct Of Self-Preservation

    AT THE CROSSROAD: BETWEEN DIGNITY AND INSTINCT OF SELF-PRESERVATION
    Naira Hayrumyan

    KarabakhOpen
    13-03-2008 13:14:40

    The Armenian world - Armenia, Artsakh and the Diaspora - is discussing
    seriously the possibility of establishment of democracy and protection
    of national security in Armenia. The post-election process in Armenia
    is viewed in this context. Although everyone understands this is a
    primitive approach, in this discourse many perceive the government of
    Armenia as a guarantor of national security, and Levon Ter-Petrosyan's
    supporters as carriers of democracy which is believed to pose national
    security to threat.

    The discussion takes place in different aspects in the three parts
    of the Armenian world.

    In Armenia, which is the subject in this process, a great number of
    people think that democracy cannot be sacrificed. They think that
    the government violated democracy long before March 1. There was no
    democracy in the country in the pre-election period when the government
    took under control the majority of the media. A major part of people
    in Armenia think the absence of democracy is lack of respect of the
    government for people, violation of rights, honor and dignity of
    every separate person. Most of those people think this behavior of
    the government is a heavier blow at the national interests than the
    external foe.

    In Armenia there are also people who think that some freedoms could
    be sacrificed to security and stability. Some people agree not to
    get information, live in a corrupt, non-democratic country only to
    avoid war.

    The correlation of those two parts of the Armenian society is difficult
    to measure.

    In Artsakh, which is the main subject of national security and where
    skirmishes occurred on the border some time ago, there is almost no
    discussion (except for a couple of alternative opinions). There is
    a diehard opinion that no democracy will help if they are shooting
    on the border, that those who cause instability in Armenia are
    accomplices of the external foe which is interested in the weakness of
    Armenia. In Armenia nobody perceives the idea that democracy can also
    be a guarantor of national security. Most people of the country think
    that only a strong government can guarantee security in this stage.

    Judging by blogs and forums, opinions differ. Most Armenians living
    abroad, who live in accordance with democratic rules, were frightened
    by the border incident and rumors about funding of the Armenian
    opposition from the outside, and think that for the sake of stability
    and security it is possible to ignore rigged elections, corruption,
    violation of human rights.

    Everyone knows that in Armenia non-democratic elections are already
    customary, whereas stability is a national priority, say most Diaspora
    Armenians, especially who have a Dashnaktsutyun-like thinking.

    There are also a great number of Diasporans who do not accept the
    present government. They think that this government is a threat
    to national security, both in terms of internal and external
    policies. They consider the ongoing process as an effort of the
    government to hold on to the top of the pyramid.

    The following conclusions can be drawn:

    1. Part of the Armenian nation perceived the ideas of regional
    integration offered by Levon Ter-Petrosyan as a threat to their
    security. Hardly anyone denies that the world is moving toward
    integration, that this is the only way of not taking a back seat in
    politics, that Armenia cannot live in isolation forever, but analyzing
    the external conditions, especially hostile neighbors, every Armenian
    understand inside that in this situation opening of borders, Caucasian
    integration may lead to physical extermination of the Armenian people.

    2. Democracy has not become an absolute value for the Armenian people.

    Freedom of expression of thoughts, enjoyment of rights for freedom of
    political and other opinions set down in laws, public discussion of
    urgent problems of the society have not become part of the Armenian
    mentality. The basis of the national worldview is the instinct of
    self-preservation which stems from objective external conditions.

    3. Due to the lack of free media, the Armenian people have difficulty
    understanding what the struggle in Armenia is for, and how it is
    connected with national security. If it is a banal struggle for
    power, why are people involved in it? If the change of orientation is
    concerned (pro-West or pro-Russian), how is it possible to find out
    without a public discussion, which is more beneficial for an average
    Armenian? If it is a Turkish or whatever political plot aimed at
    weakening the state, and its external political potential, very serious
    arguments are needed to make such accusations. If those arguments had
    been offered to people, everything would have moved in a different
    direction. The lack of arguments gives rise to other thoughts.

    4. Assume that Armenia sacrifices democracy for the sake of stability.

    Assume that the external forces forced Armenia to make concessions
    which threaten national security. Assume that people decides to go
    on protest.

    What actions will be taken against the society which protests
    against the decision of the government to return the territories,
    for instance? Again impose a state of emergency?
Working...
X