Tweet
WILL WE BECOME A NATION?
Interview by SIRANUYSH PAPYAN
Lragir.am
08 Dec 2010
Our interlocutor is political scientist, publicist Edgar Vardanyan
Edgar, what do you think about nationalists and liberalists?
Nationalism, in terms of an idea of formation of the nation, is a
normal idea. But, in practice, nationalism appeared as a resistance to
old aristocrat regimes and had the goal to create public and political
unions of a new type. Nation is a new notion of European origin.
Nation is first of all a union of people gathered with the intention
to form a nation, who are self-determined and have sovereignty,
who have power in this or that territory. The notion of the "nation"
was formed in 17-18 centuries, when new political unions in the face
of modern European nations appeared. In this sense, nationalism is
a quite new, progressive, modern social-political conception, which
promotes the self-determination of a nation.
Can we assert that those, who say that we are not formed as a nation,
mean that the politics on which it is based failed?
The process that was happening in Europe in 17-18 centuries, has
started in a territory called Armenia only recently, and it is still
an issue whether we will manage to be formed as a nation.
Do you think we are late?
It is clear that we are, since, we have not participated in world
processes in practice.
Now, nationalism is perceived in the world in negative colors.
Nationalism as a nation-forming idea lost its actuality in Europe and
is now observed as an antagonism to liberalism. Nationalism is viewed
as a threat to the individual freedom, as a dominance of national
interests to individual ones. The forces, which proclaim themselves
nationalists, are seen in Europe as those encroaching on the freedom
of individuals and stating about the uniqueness and superiority of
their nations. Such nationalism is seen as an extremist, racist and
fascist concept, antagonistic to democratic ideology.
If we use nationalism as a nation-forming idea, just like it was once
used in Europe, everything will be all right in Armenia, and here
there cannot be contradictions with liberalism. The whole issue is
that nationalism does not contain the aforementioned idea.
Those forces which consider themselves nationalists do not support
democracy and Constitutional ideas. They see nationalism as something
above individuality. This nationalism identifies the two notions of
"nation and ethnos".
What is the difference?
Nation is a political, voluntary union based on free will. A nation
can be composed of representatives of various ethnic groups. Ethnos
means genetic generality based on some myths. We put no difference
between these two concepts, and nationalists are considered those,
who argue that ethnic interest prevails over individual rights and
the rights of other ethnic groups. And after that, our nationalists
do not consider themselves racists and anti-democrats.
Is there any connection between religion and nationalism?
Judging by the speeches of our clerics, they see the apostolic doctrine
as a religion of purely Armenian ethnics. They believe that Armenians
should be followers of the Armenian Apostolic Church. In the modern
world, such approaches are unacceptable. This is at odds not only
with the secular democratic foundations, but also the constitutional
principle of separation of church and state.
Can a nation be formed through civil union?
This is a very serious condition. Since, expression of civil protest
can be of imitation character. I am sure for example that the demands
of the Armenian academicians to free Nikol Pashinyan are ordered from
"above".
Is there political will for such changes in Armenia?
I would like to believe so.
From: A. Papazian
Interview by SIRANUYSH PAPYAN
Lragir.am
08 Dec 2010
Our interlocutor is political scientist, publicist Edgar Vardanyan
Edgar, what do you think about nationalists and liberalists?
Nationalism, in terms of an idea of formation of the nation, is a
normal idea. But, in practice, nationalism appeared as a resistance to
old aristocrat regimes and had the goal to create public and political
unions of a new type. Nation is a new notion of European origin.
Nation is first of all a union of people gathered with the intention
to form a nation, who are self-determined and have sovereignty,
who have power in this or that territory. The notion of the "nation"
was formed in 17-18 centuries, when new political unions in the face
of modern European nations appeared. In this sense, nationalism is
a quite new, progressive, modern social-political conception, which
promotes the self-determination of a nation.
Can we assert that those, who say that we are not formed as a nation,
mean that the politics on which it is based failed?
The process that was happening in Europe in 17-18 centuries, has
started in a territory called Armenia only recently, and it is still
an issue whether we will manage to be formed as a nation.
Do you think we are late?
It is clear that we are, since, we have not participated in world
processes in practice.
Now, nationalism is perceived in the world in negative colors.
Nationalism as a nation-forming idea lost its actuality in Europe and
is now observed as an antagonism to liberalism. Nationalism is viewed
as a threat to the individual freedom, as a dominance of national
interests to individual ones. The forces, which proclaim themselves
nationalists, are seen in Europe as those encroaching on the freedom
of individuals and stating about the uniqueness and superiority of
their nations. Such nationalism is seen as an extremist, racist and
fascist concept, antagonistic to democratic ideology.
If we use nationalism as a nation-forming idea, just like it was once
used in Europe, everything will be all right in Armenia, and here
there cannot be contradictions with liberalism. The whole issue is
that nationalism does not contain the aforementioned idea.
Those forces which consider themselves nationalists do not support
democracy and Constitutional ideas. They see nationalism as something
above individuality. This nationalism identifies the two notions of
"nation and ethnos".
What is the difference?
Nation is a political, voluntary union based on free will. A nation
can be composed of representatives of various ethnic groups. Ethnos
means genetic generality based on some myths. We put no difference
between these two concepts, and nationalists are considered those,
who argue that ethnic interest prevails over individual rights and
the rights of other ethnic groups. And after that, our nationalists
do not consider themselves racists and anti-democrats.
Is there any connection between religion and nationalism?
Judging by the speeches of our clerics, they see the apostolic doctrine
as a religion of purely Armenian ethnics. They believe that Armenians
should be followers of the Armenian Apostolic Church. In the modern
world, such approaches are unacceptable. This is at odds not only
with the secular democratic foundations, but also the constitutional
principle of separation of church and state.
Can a nation be formed through civil union?
This is a very serious condition. Since, expression of civil protest
can be of imitation character. I am sure for example that the demands
of the Armenian academicians to free Nikol Pashinyan are ordered from
"above".
Is there political will for such changes in Armenia?
I would like to believe so.
From: A. Papazian