Tweet
TUMBLEWEED "POLITICAL THOUGHT"
Hakob Badalyan
http://www.lragir.am/src/index.php?id=co mments&pid=14988
13:07:19 - 26/08/2009
The Karabakh issue has become something like litmus for the political
forces and figures of Armenia, although many of them do not know
what litmus is. But it does not matter. Most of them do not know
more important things but they know that they must always approve
the government's wishes for their wishes or at least part of their
wishes to come true too. In this respect, the Karabakh issue is very
illustrative for the political sphere of Armenia.
As one listens to judgments on the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict, the judgments of political figures, political experts,
various analysts, one can give the precise definition or diagnosis
of the Armenian political sphere: tumbleweedomania. The tumbleweed
is a plant which has such weak roots that the wind easily blows it
from one place to another.
In Karabakh, the Armenian political and the adjacent thoughts are
in a tumbleweed state. They say one thing one day, then they think
that what they said does not match with what the government wants,
they say something else, then they doubt that they did not explain it
clearly to the government and they say it again. Perhaps the government
starts doubting why they say the same thing twice, and whether they
think the government is dumb or whether they say it for someone else.
The opposition forces and figures say the opposite but with the same
meaning. In other words, they say that the territories should be ceded
but not the way the government wants and not to the extent and not
those territories which the government wants to cede, and particularly
not, although generally yes. And so tumbles the 21st century Armenian
political thought with its politico-analytical accessories, acting
as a staunch negotiator one day, as a stock broker the other day,
and constantly threatening the society that otherwise there will
be war. And it turns out that if what the government wants and says
does not come true in Karabakh, the end will be war, and if what the
opposition wants and says happens, the end will be war. Here are two
fears, and two fears are one death, the saying runs. That is why the
Armenian political thought, especially with regard to the Karabakh
issue, is dead. Two fears, pro-government and opposition, would not
lead elsewhere.
Elsewhere would be a multi-layered political debate on the Karabakh
issue, the parties having equal freedom to express. This debate should
shape public opinion although prior to that it should shape idea,
perception of the real essence of the Karabakh issue, explain to the
society that the Karabakh issue is not a burden to rid of but an issue
of security which must be solved. It seems that all these are primitive
judgments, trivial truths, which sound naive. But the problem is that
in the current situation in Armenia regarding the Karabakh issue it
seems necessary to begin with the primitive and the trivial not to let
the worry about concession of territories sound as a "provincial fear"
or not to explain the absence of likelihood to surrender in Azerbaijan
by "our victory", that "we won" so we speak about concession whereas
the Azerbaijanis lost so they do not want to cede.
This judgment would be true for street football when the score is
15 to 2 and it is meaningless to score twice more because the score
would be 15 to 5, not more. However, it is not only unacceptable but
also dangerous to judge about official, public stances on Armenia in
terms of street football.
I have already written, and I repeat that the approach of keeping
the land is not always determined by the national romanticism "not a
patch of land". The territories are a geographic, political, economic,
military, strategic factor. Therefore, even if the issue of ceding them
is to be discussed publicly, it must get a profound and comprehensive
discussion based on adequate research on all the mentioned spheres.
Otherwise, the entire state may be threatened by tumbleweedomania,
if of course the threat is still a little far.
Hakob Badalyan
http://www.lragir.am/src/index.php?id=co mments&pid=14988
13:07:19 - 26/08/2009
The Karabakh issue has become something like litmus for the political
forces and figures of Armenia, although many of them do not know
what litmus is. But it does not matter. Most of them do not know
more important things but they know that they must always approve
the government's wishes for their wishes or at least part of their
wishes to come true too. In this respect, the Karabakh issue is very
illustrative for the political sphere of Armenia.
As one listens to judgments on the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict, the judgments of political figures, political experts,
various analysts, one can give the precise definition or diagnosis
of the Armenian political sphere: tumbleweedomania. The tumbleweed
is a plant which has such weak roots that the wind easily blows it
from one place to another.
In Karabakh, the Armenian political and the adjacent thoughts are
in a tumbleweed state. They say one thing one day, then they think
that what they said does not match with what the government wants,
they say something else, then they doubt that they did not explain it
clearly to the government and they say it again. Perhaps the government
starts doubting why they say the same thing twice, and whether they
think the government is dumb or whether they say it for someone else.
The opposition forces and figures say the opposite but with the same
meaning. In other words, they say that the territories should be ceded
but not the way the government wants and not to the extent and not
those territories which the government wants to cede, and particularly
not, although generally yes. And so tumbles the 21st century Armenian
political thought with its politico-analytical accessories, acting
as a staunch negotiator one day, as a stock broker the other day,
and constantly threatening the society that otherwise there will
be war. And it turns out that if what the government wants and says
does not come true in Karabakh, the end will be war, and if what the
opposition wants and says happens, the end will be war. Here are two
fears, and two fears are one death, the saying runs. That is why the
Armenian political thought, especially with regard to the Karabakh
issue, is dead. Two fears, pro-government and opposition, would not
lead elsewhere.
Elsewhere would be a multi-layered political debate on the Karabakh
issue, the parties having equal freedom to express. This debate should
shape public opinion although prior to that it should shape idea,
perception of the real essence of the Karabakh issue, explain to the
society that the Karabakh issue is not a burden to rid of but an issue
of security which must be solved. It seems that all these are primitive
judgments, trivial truths, which sound naive. But the problem is that
in the current situation in Armenia regarding the Karabakh issue it
seems necessary to begin with the primitive and the trivial not to let
the worry about concession of territories sound as a "provincial fear"
or not to explain the absence of likelihood to surrender in Azerbaijan
by "our victory", that "we won" so we speak about concession whereas
the Azerbaijanis lost so they do not want to cede.
This judgment would be true for street football when the score is
15 to 2 and it is meaningless to score twice more because the score
would be 15 to 5, not more. However, it is not only unacceptable but
also dangerous to judge about official, public stances on Armenia in
terms of street football.
I have already written, and I repeat that the approach of keeping
the land is not always determined by the national romanticism "not a
patch of land". The territories are a geographic, political, economic,
military, strategic factor. Therefore, even if the issue of ceding them
is to be discussed publicly, it must get a profound and comprehensive
discussion based on adequate research on all the mentioned spheres.
Otherwise, the entire state may be threatened by tumbleweedomania,
if of course the threat is still a little far.