Tweet
QUALITY CHANGE SINCE 2007
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview-lrahos 15274.html
16:32:52 - 22/09/2009
Interview By Siranuysh Papyan
Interview with the critic, curator, head of the National Association
of Art Critics (AIKA Armenia) Nazaret Karoyan
In your opinion what is government and what are the mechanisms of
its formation and its functions?
Government is power which regulates interpersonal and inter-group
social and political relations. This regards public government
too. Depending on the source of the power, during the history there
were formed different types of government: monarchy - from symbolic
government based on religion up to the current republican one based
on Constitution.
If the symbolic government is based on natural force, so the natural
force formed during the Enlightenment age is based on symbolic
force. Michel Foucault, who introduced the term "bio-government",
thinks it is based on the same perception the believers perceive
their pastor. Until it was spread on public political life, it was
used on its structure as a technology.
According to the Constitution, our public government had to be also
shared. There are legislative, executive and judicial systems. In
reality the government is centered in the hand of one person-the
president and the rest are false.
In other words, do we have a false government today?
Absolutely right. Though we adopted a second Constitution which made
the republic half-presidential for equality between the two sides of
the government, but in reality the government in centered only in
president's hands. If it is not false how we can explain the fact
that there is such a majority in the National Assembly supporting
the president that the legislative body cannot oppose the executive.
In your opinion, how can the public reclaim its right to form
government?
I think problems with reforming the government will be difficult to
solve and I am not even sure that they are possible to be solved
on political plane. Changes that are more fundamental are needed
not in the political but in cultural and value's fields. Without
such changes, I do not think we will be able to get rid of those
historical-political inertias which were formed in the past hundred
years. And this problem of changes is the public's problem and it
has to find forces and ideas to promote them.
In other words, does the change of government not solve all the
problems? And what issues will the opposition solve if it takes
the power?
The problem is not the change of government and neither whether HAK
will come to power. The problem is the way the change of government
happens. The problems is that those who take the power, the Congress
or a person or anyone else how legitimate they will be. Max Weber
proposed three types of legitimacy: legitimacy formed through belief
towards tradition, second- substance where the legitimacy is based on
personal peculiarities, third- constitutional, where the governmental
force and rights are set by the Constitution. I think we need the
last two types of legitimacy to change the situation in our country.
Do you mean the Constitution was not followed in the last twenty years?
During the years of the movement of Karabakh, people were able to
conquer their right to vote through struggle. But, beginning from '90
elections did not bring to change of government. The pre-electoral
and post-electoral processes of the opposition and the numerous
applications sent to the Constitutional Court affirmed self-reproducing
of the ruling political force, so how can we speak about following the
Constitution? How can we dwell on the governmental legitimacy when in
result of each election, the public being unsatisfied with the ruling
force never achieved change of government? This is a simple sign that
the Constitution does not work. I think even the political forces,
even the ruling ones comprehend this very well. And in my opinion
this comprehension made Levon Ter-Petrosyan resign in 1998.
Is the public aware of decision-making process? Does it participate
in it? And in case the society is isolated from these works, which
is the mechanism of its isolation?
The public participates in decision-making processes through
elections. How can it demand transparency from the government in
decision-making process if the elections are false? The mechanism
to isolate the public from the government is to break the mechanism
of election.
In your opinion, is the current Armenian government ready to resist
to the home and external challenges?
No. it is not able to resist even the challenges appearing inside
the country. The members of our government reiterate the need to
form an economy based on knowledge, but they are unable to form a
proper educational system. We see who monopolized different fields
of the economy: people who have nothing in common with knowledge. The
government is unable to resist these challenges let alone to understand
or to be ready to overcome them.
Do you believe in 2012 transparent election?
In order to have national participation once four years, the
public activation has to be present always. Public figures,
public organizations may unite the public with their projects and
proposals. Public activity means daily active work, imagination,
and non-indifference towards current problems.
I think change of quality happened in public's life after 2007. We see
not only formation of public groups but also their activities. And
now at least formally the government when bringing up issues meets
also with NGO representatives.
Until '96, Armenia was considered a democratic island in the region. Do
you agree we lost democracy then?
Yes, I think after the war, in 1994-96, our society was unable to
solve the problem of commanders who won the war. And they took in
their hands the organization of public life. '96 is its expression.
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview-lrahos 15274.html
16:32:52 - 22/09/2009
Interview By Siranuysh Papyan
Interview with the critic, curator, head of the National Association
of Art Critics (AIKA Armenia) Nazaret Karoyan
In your opinion what is government and what are the mechanisms of
its formation and its functions?
Government is power which regulates interpersonal and inter-group
social and political relations. This regards public government
too. Depending on the source of the power, during the history there
were formed different types of government: monarchy - from symbolic
government based on religion up to the current republican one based
on Constitution.
If the symbolic government is based on natural force, so the natural
force formed during the Enlightenment age is based on symbolic
force. Michel Foucault, who introduced the term "bio-government",
thinks it is based on the same perception the believers perceive
their pastor. Until it was spread on public political life, it was
used on its structure as a technology.
According to the Constitution, our public government had to be also
shared. There are legislative, executive and judicial systems. In
reality the government is centered in the hand of one person-the
president and the rest are false.
In other words, do we have a false government today?
Absolutely right. Though we adopted a second Constitution which made
the republic half-presidential for equality between the two sides of
the government, but in reality the government in centered only in
president's hands. If it is not false how we can explain the fact
that there is such a majority in the National Assembly supporting
the president that the legislative body cannot oppose the executive.
In your opinion, how can the public reclaim its right to form
government?
I think problems with reforming the government will be difficult to
solve and I am not even sure that they are possible to be solved
on political plane. Changes that are more fundamental are needed
not in the political but in cultural and value's fields. Without
such changes, I do not think we will be able to get rid of those
historical-political inertias which were formed in the past hundred
years. And this problem of changes is the public's problem and it
has to find forces and ideas to promote them.
In other words, does the change of government not solve all the
problems? And what issues will the opposition solve if it takes
the power?
The problem is not the change of government and neither whether HAK
will come to power. The problem is the way the change of government
happens. The problems is that those who take the power, the Congress
or a person or anyone else how legitimate they will be. Max Weber
proposed three types of legitimacy: legitimacy formed through belief
towards tradition, second- substance where the legitimacy is based on
personal peculiarities, third- constitutional, where the governmental
force and rights are set by the Constitution. I think we need the
last two types of legitimacy to change the situation in our country.
Do you mean the Constitution was not followed in the last twenty years?
During the years of the movement of Karabakh, people were able to
conquer their right to vote through struggle. But, beginning from '90
elections did not bring to change of government. The pre-electoral
and post-electoral processes of the opposition and the numerous
applications sent to the Constitutional Court affirmed self-reproducing
of the ruling political force, so how can we speak about following the
Constitution? How can we dwell on the governmental legitimacy when in
result of each election, the public being unsatisfied with the ruling
force never achieved change of government? This is a simple sign that
the Constitution does not work. I think even the political forces,
even the ruling ones comprehend this very well. And in my opinion
this comprehension made Levon Ter-Petrosyan resign in 1998.
Is the public aware of decision-making process? Does it participate
in it? And in case the society is isolated from these works, which
is the mechanism of its isolation?
The public participates in decision-making processes through
elections. How can it demand transparency from the government in
decision-making process if the elections are false? The mechanism
to isolate the public from the government is to break the mechanism
of election.
In your opinion, is the current Armenian government ready to resist
to the home and external challenges?
No. it is not able to resist even the challenges appearing inside
the country. The members of our government reiterate the need to
form an economy based on knowledge, but they are unable to form a
proper educational system. We see who monopolized different fields
of the economy: people who have nothing in common with knowledge. The
government is unable to resist these challenges let alone to understand
or to be ready to overcome them.
Do you believe in 2012 transparent election?
In order to have national participation once four years, the
public activation has to be present always. Public figures,
public organizations may unite the public with their projects and
proposals. Public activity means daily active work, imagination,
and non-indifference towards current problems.
I think change of quality happened in public's life after 2007. We see
not only formation of public groups but also their activities. And
now at least formally the government when bringing up issues meets
also with NGO representatives.
Until '96, Armenia was considered a democratic island in the region. Do
you agree we lost democracy then?
Yes, I think after the war, in 1994-96, our society was unable to
solve the problem of commanders who won the war. And they took in
their hands the organization of public life. '96 is its expression.