Tweet
THE LUXURY AND MISERY OF THE NATIVE ELITE
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
March 28, 2008
It is evident that very soon we will eyewitness the essential
innovation of the native elite and the country's development is
greatly conditioned by the success of this process.
"The minority and not the majority has ruled, rules and will always
rule since the creation of the world. It works in all the forms
and types of governing: be it monarchy, democracy, regressive or
revolutionary epoch.
There is no way to get rid of the minority's governing and your
democratic attempts to establish majority's rule is, in essence,
a miserable self-deception. The thing is, which minority rules -
the best or the worst."
Many people will most probably disagree with the words of the Russian
great philosopher Berdiayev, but nevertheless, it covers a very
important and principal issue: how to turn the governing minority,
the elite, into the focal point of the best powers of society.
Touching upon the present situation: does the ruling system contribute
to the involvement of the best and the worthiest among the elite.
If no, then why? What should we do to correct it?
The word "elite", in our society arouses irony, at best, and more
often it gives rise to negative emotions. But before joining the rare
supporters or the big army of critics of elite, lets clarify the real
meaning of the word "elite".
There are various characterizations of this word, but more often,
saying "elite" we mean a not big group of people who occupy leading
positions, and who take pivotal decisions in the political, economic,
and cultural sphere of the social life. As a rule mass consciousness
excludes the involvement of the "men of art" among the elite.
In essence they usually make two demands to the elite. Which are
these demands? They must be productive and fair. Productiveness
assumes successful solution of the problems faced by the country and
fairness: the solution of these issues to the benefit of the majority
of society. The harmony of productiveness and fairness is as rare as
ideal marriage.
But the problem is far not even in the total absence of productiveness
and fairness. History shows that society is ready to tolerate unfair
elite for a long period of time, if they manage to successfully
pursue pan-national goals, for example in our case the pro-Armenian
settlement of Karabakh issue.
The same way productive elite can enjoy the people's support if they
consider their activity fair. But woe to the elite which is neither
productive nor fair.
Question number one: Can we consider our elite productive? Not certain
representatives of elite, but the whole group that take decisions of
state importance and control their implementation. Alas the answer
is negative.
Sometimes we hear that allegedly correct and wonderful decisions
are usually taken there on top levels, but the terrible bureaucratic
implementation deforms them. But the high-ranking official who has
no idea about how his "genius" program is going to be implemented,
is simply good for nothing.
The contemporary native elite is successful in only two issues:
pressuring the political opposition and the use of their position
for personal and group purposes.
The last circumstance can hardly be considered productive, a ruling
that assumes supremacy of pan-national goals over personal ones.
Of course the native financial and trade elite can be considered
productive in terms of their personal enrichment. In all the other
issues they are incomparably unsuccessful. Though frankly the majority
of society doesn't benefit from this success.
It is only by means of a gun, in the strictest sense of the word, that
you can force the business elite to share their wealth with society,
and meet half way their principal demands. The state, in essence, can
commit itself to the role of the similar "gun", by means of restricting
personal and group benefits. But hawks will not pick out hawks'
eyes. The ancestral feature of the native elite (not only business,
but also state-political) is a crying injustice towards society.
Without pressure our native elite will never change for the better. As
the world practice shows, the fundamental self-transformation of the
elite is possible only in case of serious challenges and threats. The
situation is such at present."
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
March 28, 2008
It is evident that very soon we will eyewitness the essential
innovation of the native elite and the country's development is
greatly conditioned by the success of this process.
"The minority and not the majority has ruled, rules and will always
rule since the creation of the world. It works in all the forms
and types of governing: be it monarchy, democracy, regressive or
revolutionary epoch.
There is no way to get rid of the minority's governing and your
democratic attempts to establish majority's rule is, in essence,
a miserable self-deception. The thing is, which minority rules -
the best or the worst."
Many people will most probably disagree with the words of the Russian
great philosopher Berdiayev, but nevertheless, it covers a very
important and principal issue: how to turn the governing minority,
the elite, into the focal point of the best powers of society.
Touching upon the present situation: does the ruling system contribute
to the involvement of the best and the worthiest among the elite.
If no, then why? What should we do to correct it?
The word "elite", in our society arouses irony, at best, and more
often it gives rise to negative emotions. But before joining the rare
supporters or the big army of critics of elite, lets clarify the real
meaning of the word "elite".
There are various characterizations of this word, but more often,
saying "elite" we mean a not big group of people who occupy leading
positions, and who take pivotal decisions in the political, economic,
and cultural sphere of the social life. As a rule mass consciousness
excludes the involvement of the "men of art" among the elite.
In essence they usually make two demands to the elite. Which are
these demands? They must be productive and fair. Productiveness
assumes successful solution of the problems faced by the country and
fairness: the solution of these issues to the benefit of the majority
of society. The harmony of productiveness and fairness is as rare as
ideal marriage.
But the problem is far not even in the total absence of productiveness
and fairness. History shows that society is ready to tolerate unfair
elite for a long period of time, if they manage to successfully
pursue pan-national goals, for example in our case the pro-Armenian
settlement of Karabakh issue.
The same way productive elite can enjoy the people's support if they
consider their activity fair. But woe to the elite which is neither
productive nor fair.
Question number one: Can we consider our elite productive? Not certain
representatives of elite, but the whole group that take decisions of
state importance and control their implementation. Alas the answer
is negative.
Sometimes we hear that allegedly correct and wonderful decisions
are usually taken there on top levels, but the terrible bureaucratic
implementation deforms them. But the high-ranking official who has
no idea about how his "genius" program is going to be implemented,
is simply good for nothing.
The contemporary native elite is successful in only two issues:
pressuring the political opposition and the use of their position
for personal and group purposes.
The last circumstance can hardly be considered productive, a ruling
that assumes supremacy of pan-national goals over personal ones.
Of course the native financial and trade elite can be considered
productive in terms of their personal enrichment. In all the other
issues they are incomparably unsuccessful. Though frankly the majority
of society doesn't benefit from this success.
It is only by means of a gun, in the strictest sense of the word, that
you can force the business elite to share their wealth with society,
and meet half way their principal demands. The state, in essence, can
commit itself to the role of the similar "gun", by means of restricting
personal and group benefits. But hawks will not pick out hawks'
eyes. The ancestral feature of the native elite (not only business,
but also state-political) is a crying injustice towards society.
Without pressure our native elite will never change for the better. As
the world practice shows, the fundamental self-transformation of the
elite is possible only in case of serious challenges and threats. The
situation is such at present."
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress