Tweet
A1+
People are ill after March 1
[08:17 pm] 12 March, 2009
ACNIS Presents New Monograph on the Psychology of Comparative Change
Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS) today
convened a special roundtable to present the findings of a new
monograph entitled `One Year Later: The Psychology of Comparative
Change in Armenia and the US.'
Welcoming the participants and attendees, ACNIS Director Richard
Giragosian explained that `one year after the tragic events of March
1, 2008, Armenia remains challenged by the lingering effects of an
unresolved post-election crisis,' but noted that `the underlying
causes of Armenia's post-election crisis include several unresolved
problems, ranging from widening socio-economic disparities to a
pronounced political polarization.'
The ACNIS Director went to say that the monograph revealed `an
interesting parallel in the psychology of comparative change in
Armenia and the United States, driven in both countries by an
awakening of the people, as a population no longer satisfied with
apathy or inactivity, and seeking an agenda for change.'
The day's first speaker, ACNIS Research Coordinator Syuzanna
Barseghian, presented the monograph's findings entitled `The Logic of
the Presidential Election of 2008: The Change of the Public
Perceptions.' According to Barseghian, Armenia's 2008 presidential
elections were distinct because, this time, apathy did not accompany
the entire pre- and post-election process. And during the
post-election phase, there was a civic and psychological process
which the authorities tried to define as an `appropriation of state
power' and a `coup' attempt, whereas the opposition called it a
`people's movement. `Yet the greatest concern is the disappointment
that could emerge among the masses who have awakened from apathy, and
this disappointment is dangerous for the whole society. It is
therefore necessary to learn lessons from such developments,'
Barseghian noted. `The social tension and the polarization of the
political field as well as the absence of discourse and the state of
intolerance, all of which are the results of the 2008 presidential
elections, inevitably will bring about a need to increase the
societal factor and the citizens' role in the political processes, a
change in public perceptions, and a demand for a `new opposition.''
In her turn, ACNIS analyst Armine Ghazarian spoke on the monograph's
findings under the heading `The Psychological Peculiarities of the
Presidential Election Period.' As indicated by Ghazarian, the events
that occurred in Armenia in the past one year, and those that are
still taking place, have brought about a social and psychological
decline and have created public tension. As a result, we now face
growing psychological problems, such as frustration, depression and
discomfort, psychological and emotional strains and responses, as
well as stress and resultant reactions. `All this has led to the
adoption of a variety of psychological defense mechanisms:
aggression, ousting, denial, rationalization, etc. And it is a
troubling fact that a long time is still needed to triumph over such
reactions and related behavior so that they do not become fixed
character traits, or affect the mentality and psychological
characteristics of the Armenian people,' Ghazarian argued.
ACNIS Director presented the last presentation, `The Psychology of
Change in the US: The Obama Experience,' with an analysis of `the
American candidate of change,' President Barack Obama, who was `able
to mobilize and inspire the American voters by offering something new
and promising real change.' He went on to stress that despite the
similarity between the American and Armenian political context of a
need for change, there were several key differences, including: the
fact that in US politics, votes count and are protected, and the
reality of two different political systems.
Giragosian explained that `while in Armenia, the political system is a
`top-down' and closed structure, with power concentrated in the
presidency, in the US, the power of the political system rests on a
system of `checks and balances' that promotes a healthy and positive
competition between the three branches of government. He then pointed
to the separation of business & politics and the role of the
`opposition' as important lessons for Armenia, saying that `Armenia
needs to recognize that the fact that a dynamic and active opposition
is a sign of a healthy and vibrant democracy, and is not a threat to
the state or the system.'
The formal deliberations were then followed by questions, answers, and
a lively exchange among many leading Armenian analysts and experts, as
well as several officials.
People are ill after March 1
[08:17 pm] 12 March, 2009
ACNIS Presents New Monograph on the Psychology of Comparative Change
Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS) today
convened a special roundtable to present the findings of a new
monograph entitled `One Year Later: The Psychology of Comparative
Change in Armenia and the US.'
Welcoming the participants and attendees, ACNIS Director Richard
Giragosian explained that `one year after the tragic events of March
1, 2008, Armenia remains challenged by the lingering effects of an
unresolved post-election crisis,' but noted that `the underlying
causes of Armenia's post-election crisis include several unresolved
problems, ranging from widening socio-economic disparities to a
pronounced political polarization.'
The ACNIS Director went to say that the monograph revealed `an
interesting parallel in the psychology of comparative change in
Armenia and the United States, driven in both countries by an
awakening of the people, as a population no longer satisfied with
apathy or inactivity, and seeking an agenda for change.'
The day's first speaker, ACNIS Research Coordinator Syuzanna
Barseghian, presented the monograph's findings entitled `The Logic of
the Presidential Election of 2008: The Change of the Public
Perceptions.' According to Barseghian, Armenia's 2008 presidential
elections were distinct because, this time, apathy did not accompany
the entire pre- and post-election process. And during the
post-election phase, there was a civic and psychological process
which the authorities tried to define as an `appropriation of state
power' and a `coup' attempt, whereas the opposition called it a
`people's movement. `Yet the greatest concern is the disappointment
that could emerge among the masses who have awakened from apathy, and
this disappointment is dangerous for the whole society. It is
therefore necessary to learn lessons from such developments,'
Barseghian noted. `The social tension and the polarization of the
political field as well as the absence of discourse and the state of
intolerance, all of which are the results of the 2008 presidential
elections, inevitably will bring about a need to increase the
societal factor and the citizens' role in the political processes, a
change in public perceptions, and a demand for a `new opposition.''
In her turn, ACNIS analyst Armine Ghazarian spoke on the monograph's
findings under the heading `The Psychological Peculiarities of the
Presidential Election Period.' As indicated by Ghazarian, the events
that occurred in Armenia in the past one year, and those that are
still taking place, have brought about a social and psychological
decline and have created public tension. As a result, we now face
growing psychological problems, such as frustration, depression and
discomfort, psychological and emotional strains and responses, as
well as stress and resultant reactions. `All this has led to the
adoption of a variety of psychological defense mechanisms:
aggression, ousting, denial, rationalization, etc. And it is a
troubling fact that a long time is still needed to triumph over such
reactions and related behavior so that they do not become fixed
character traits, or affect the mentality and psychological
characteristics of the Armenian people,' Ghazarian argued.
ACNIS Director presented the last presentation, `The Psychology of
Change in the US: The Obama Experience,' with an analysis of `the
American candidate of change,' President Barack Obama, who was `able
to mobilize and inspire the American voters by offering something new
and promising real change.' He went on to stress that despite the
similarity between the American and Armenian political context of a
need for change, there were several key differences, including: the
fact that in US politics, votes count and are protected, and the
reality of two different political systems.
Giragosian explained that `while in Armenia, the political system is a
`top-down' and closed structure, with power concentrated in the
presidency, in the US, the power of the political system rests on a
system of `checks and balances' that promotes a healthy and positive
competition between the three branches of government. He then pointed
to the separation of business & politics and the role of the
`opposition' as important lessons for Armenia, saying that `Armenia
needs to recognize that the fact that a dynamic and active opposition
is a sign of a healthy and vibrant democracy, and is not a threat to
the state or the system.'
The formal deliberations were then followed by questions, answers, and
a lively exchange among many leading Armenian analysts and experts, as
well as several officials.