Tweet
REVOLUTION DIES: LONG LIVE THE EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT
Lilit Poghosyan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
19 Sep 2008
Armenia
Political Scientist ALEXANDER ISKANDARYAN answers the questions of
"HAYOTS ASHKHARH"
"A couple of months ago, when the journalists asked questions about
the possible developments in autumn, I said there was no need to run
ahead of the events although I didn't rule out the possibility that
the opposition, in the person of L. Ter-Petrosyan and his proponents,
would try to mount a new wave of protest in autumn. Today, I can
already state that such possibility was strictly theoretical. Judging
by all, it didn't happen.
What happened was something which is quite comprehensible:
the opposition slackened its pace. Why? We can point out several
objective and subjective reasons. But the main reason, in my opinion,
is objective. The mechanisms adopted by the Armenian Pan-National
Movement, under the leadership of L. Ter-Petrosyan, were adjusted to
the elections. They were created as tools that could be used only once
(battering rams, for example). I don't know whether L. Ter-Petrosyan
himself seriously believed that the tool would work, but many of his
proponents really believed that it would.
The tool designed for one-time use could have been effective before the
elections and right after the elections, and even in spring. However,
the demonstrations held in spring did not lead to the desired result;
and then followed the summer 'ceasefire'. The agenda of the 'heated
autumn' is already exhausted."
"The autumn has just begun. Why do you think that the opposition will
be unable to mobilize its proponents in the nearest future and seize
power with a 'decisive' attack, as they are wont to say?"
"I am least of all interested in what the politicians say. Of course,
they may express objections, saying that it will happen later - in
October or November, but this isn't the way things happen. Why? Many
of the sympathizers of Mr. Ter-Petrosyan have probably got tired; some
of them are probably disappointed. Perhaps, the political capital,
the social background of the opposition has exhausted itself.
And perhaps, it is the sense of responsibility for the country that
hinders L. Ter-Petrosyan from realizing his plans? If he decided
to undertake abrupt measures, he shouldn't have postponed the
demonstration scheduled for September 5. He should have gathered
his proponents in the street and continued accusing Serge Sargsyan
of inviting Mr. Gul to Armenia. He should have tried to incite some
incidents, forced the police to resort to violence etc. That's to say,
he should have resorted to almost the same technologies that were used
by Lenin in 1917, without the least attention to the consequences. For
some re asons, L. Ter-Petrosyan didn't wish to follow that path,
and as a result, he suffered a loss.
It was necessary to have new people. It was necessary to replenish the
ranks of the participants. But this wasn't done. And that means only
one thing: the agenda of the revolution is exhausted. The revolution
is over, and it is necessary to think of something new."
"Perhaps, this is the problem L. Ter-Petrosyan is trying to solve,
by acting from more balanced positions in his recent speeches and
encouraging the activists to arm themselves with patience and prepare
for a 'long struggle'."
"That's true. At the same time, he says it's necessary to be prepared
for abrupt actions at any moment. This is a technology that may really
be effective in some cases. If you want to gather a thick crowd of
proponents in a short period of time, you should be a populist: try
to win sympathy among all the people, promise increased pensions to
the pensioners, free competition and favorable tax duties - to the
businessmen, freedom and democracy - to the liberals and so on. This
may be effective in the short run, for instance, at election time;
but this may hardly be useful in the long run.
L. Ter-Petrosyan is trying to combine these two approaches which seem
to be contradicting each other, and this is happening in a situation
when there are no elections in store. L. Ter-Petrosyan's activities
as a personality and as a political figure are incompatible with one
another. As a personality, L. Ter-Petrosyan says what he thinks; if,
in some matters, he agrees with the authorities, he publicly announces
about it. That approach will not work if the objective consists in
launching attack and seizing power."
"Can the Armenian National Congress become the breeding ground for
the 'true opposition' which will replace the 'false oppositions'
continuously dividing and re-dividing themselves into groups?"
"Repeating myself, I should say once again that everything is possible
in theory. But this is a rather time-consuming and, I should say,
a painful process. And the reason, first of all, is that the
mass of protesters supporting L. Ter-Petrosyan expect him to act
otherwise. What they need is a speedy shift of government vs. a slow,
evolutionary process that cannot lead to a shift of government.
Besides, new mechanisms are needed. In figurative terms, it is
necessary build a car with a hammer. And that, agree with me, is
not quite easy when one does not clearly know whether the opposition
wants to follow that path.
And what's more, the public isn't ready for such change. The people,
I mean the political circles supporting the opposition, are not
disposed to a long-term struggle. The want to change the situation
by a=2 0blow of a hammer, and if they fail in their attempts, they
quit politics and again find themselves in a political 'drowsiness'.
I wish I were really like to be mistaken, but I don't think that in the
near future we may have such a strong opposition that will be able to
become a counterbalance to the ruling authorities and achieve a radical
change in the situation through evolution rather than revolution."
"Does it mean you don't see any perspective for 'extraordinary
elections'?"
"I don't think it is realistic. But I repeat that theoretically,
everything is possible. Anything may happen in conditions of
unsustainable stability, as is the situation in Armenia."
"In conditions of such 'unsustainable stability', the country has
ensured sustainable economic and political progress for 10 years
on end."
"The ground for stability is established by strong authorities. The
authorities in Armenia are weak, and this is first of all because
we don't have a strong opposition, i.e. our political system is not
accomplished. God grant that L. Ter-Petrosyan or someone else could
achieve that.
This is not a matter of individuals' being different. Repeating myself,
I say once again that it is necessary to change the atmosphere,
society and the public mentality; it is necessary to create new
mechanisms. After a ll, it is necessary to understand that no
problem can be resolved by replacing a 'bad fellow with a good
one'. Unfortunately, in young democracies like ours, the prevailing
logic is this: I don't live well because the state is governed by
bad people.
Surprising though it is, we generally expect honesty from politicians
and frankness - from diplomats. Who said that a politician should be
honest and a diplomat should say whatever he/she thinks? Is anything
of the kind written anywhere? We want the state to be governed by good
people. But the matter does not consist in 'good people', but rather,
in good mechanisms that make bad people perform good deeds. In my
opinion, it will be pointless to speak about radical changes unless
our society realizes this idea."
Lilit Poghosyan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
19 Sep 2008
Armenia
Political Scientist ALEXANDER ISKANDARYAN answers the questions of
"HAYOTS ASHKHARH"
"A couple of months ago, when the journalists asked questions about
the possible developments in autumn, I said there was no need to run
ahead of the events although I didn't rule out the possibility that
the opposition, in the person of L. Ter-Petrosyan and his proponents,
would try to mount a new wave of protest in autumn. Today, I can
already state that such possibility was strictly theoretical. Judging
by all, it didn't happen.
What happened was something which is quite comprehensible:
the opposition slackened its pace. Why? We can point out several
objective and subjective reasons. But the main reason, in my opinion,
is objective. The mechanisms adopted by the Armenian Pan-National
Movement, under the leadership of L. Ter-Petrosyan, were adjusted to
the elections. They were created as tools that could be used only once
(battering rams, for example). I don't know whether L. Ter-Petrosyan
himself seriously believed that the tool would work, but many of his
proponents really believed that it would.
The tool designed for one-time use could have been effective before the
elections and right after the elections, and even in spring. However,
the demonstrations held in spring did not lead to the desired result;
and then followed the summer 'ceasefire'. The agenda of the 'heated
autumn' is already exhausted."
"The autumn has just begun. Why do you think that the opposition will
be unable to mobilize its proponents in the nearest future and seize
power with a 'decisive' attack, as they are wont to say?"
"I am least of all interested in what the politicians say. Of course,
they may express objections, saying that it will happen later - in
October or November, but this isn't the way things happen. Why? Many
of the sympathizers of Mr. Ter-Petrosyan have probably got tired; some
of them are probably disappointed. Perhaps, the political capital,
the social background of the opposition has exhausted itself.
And perhaps, it is the sense of responsibility for the country that
hinders L. Ter-Petrosyan from realizing his plans? If he decided
to undertake abrupt measures, he shouldn't have postponed the
demonstration scheduled for September 5. He should have gathered
his proponents in the street and continued accusing Serge Sargsyan
of inviting Mr. Gul to Armenia. He should have tried to incite some
incidents, forced the police to resort to violence etc. That's to say,
he should have resorted to almost the same technologies that were used
by Lenin in 1917, without the least attention to the consequences. For
some re asons, L. Ter-Petrosyan didn't wish to follow that path,
and as a result, he suffered a loss.
It was necessary to have new people. It was necessary to replenish the
ranks of the participants. But this wasn't done. And that means only
one thing: the agenda of the revolution is exhausted. The revolution
is over, and it is necessary to think of something new."
"Perhaps, this is the problem L. Ter-Petrosyan is trying to solve,
by acting from more balanced positions in his recent speeches and
encouraging the activists to arm themselves with patience and prepare
for a 'long struggle'."
"That's true. At the same time, he says it's necessary to be prepared
for abrupt actions at any moment. This is a technology that may really
be effective in some cases. If you want to gather a thick crowd of
proponents in a short period of time, you should be a populist: try
to win sympathy among all the people, promise increased pensions to
the pensioners, free competition and favorable tax duties - to the
businessmen, freedom and democracy - to the liberals and so on. This
may be effective in the short run, for instance, at election time;
but this may hardly be useful in the long run.
L. Ter-Petrosyan is trying to combine these two approaches which seem
to be contradicting each other, and this is happening in a situation
when there are no elections in store. L. Ter-Petrosyan's activities
as a personality and as a political figure are incompatible with one
another. As a personality, L. Ter-Petrosyan says what he thinks; if,
in some matters, he agrees with the authorities, he publicly announces
about it. That approach will not work if the objective consists in
launching attack and seizing power."
"Can the Armenian National Congress become the breeding ground for
the 'true opposition' which will replace the 'false oppositions'
continuously dividing and re-dividing themselves into groups?"
"Repeating myself, I should say once again that everything is possible
in theory. But this is a rather time-consuming and, I should say,
a painful process. And the reason, first of all, is that the
mass of protesters supporting L. Ter-Petrosyan expect him to act
otherwise. What they need is a speedy shift of government vs. a slow,
evolutionary process that cannot lead to a shift of government.
Besides, new mechanisms are needed. In figurative terms, it is
necessary build a car with a hammer. And that, agree with me, is
not quite easy when one does not clearly know whether the opposition
wants to follow that path.
And what's more, the public isn't ready for such change. The people,
I mean the political circles supporting the opposition, are not
disposed to a long-term struggle. The want to change the situation
by a=2 0blow of a hammer, and if they fail in their attempts, they
quit politics and again find themselves in a political 'drowsiness'.
I wish I were really like to be mistaken, but I don't think that in the
near future we may have such a strong opposition that will be able to
become a counterbalance to the ruling authorities and achieve a radical
change in the situation through evolution rather than revolution."
"Does it mean you don't see any perspective for 'extraordinary
elections'?"
"I don't think it is realistic. But I repeat that theoretically,
everything is possible. Anything may happen in conditions of
unsustainable stability, as is the situation in Armenia."
"In conditions of such 'unsustainable stability', the country has
ensured sustainable economic and political progress for 10 years
on end."
"The ground for stability is established by strong authorities. The
authorities in Armenia are weak, and this is first of all because
we don't have a strong opposition, i.e. our political system is not
accomplished. God grant that L. Ter-Petrosyan or someone else could
achieve that.
This is not a matter of individuals' being different. Repeating myself,
I say once again that it is necessary to change the atmosphere,
society and the public mentality; it is necessary to create new
mechanisms. After a ll, it is necessary to understand that no
problem can be resolved by replacing a 'bad fellow with a good
one'. Unfortunately, in young democracies like ours, the prevailing
logic is this: I don't live well because the state is governed by
bad people.
Surprising though it is, we generally expect honesty from politicians
and frankness - from diplomats. Who said that a politician should be
honest and a diplomat should say whatever he/she thinks? Is anything
of the kind written anywhere? We want the state to be governed by good
people. But the matter does not consist in 'good people', but rather,
in good mechanisms that make bad people perform good deeds. In my
opinion, it will be pointless to speak about radical changes unless
our society realizes this idea."