Tweet
Princes Will Again Surrender
Haik Aramyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments27104.html
Published: 19:42:50 - 15/08/2012
Throughout history the creation and decline of the Armenian states
followed the same scenario. At least, in the past 2000 years the
people of the east of Armenia, Syunik and Artsakh, began and headed
the fight for liberation which resulted in an independent or
half-independent state and forming of a government. More than other
provinces, Syunik and Artsakh retained the ethnic Armenian element and
cells of independence, the instinct and aspiration to build an
independent state, had more or less efficient military. It allowed
restoring the Armenian state in different stages of history.
However, the government of Armenia shortly lost control over the
domestic situation. The statehood `inertia' of the empire ran out and
processes of degradation started in the country which was led by the
Apostolic Church and the princes of other provinces which accrue some
resource during independence, refuse to obey the central government
and try to retain their influence with the help of external forces.
Propaganda headed by the Apostolic Church was put to use to justify
and beatify the centrifugal tendency.
The modern stage of the Armenian state seems to follow the same
scenario. The movement for the liberation of Karabakh was followed by
the establishment of the independent Armenian state. A government was
formed which was unable to establish rule of law and further
strengthen independence.
The country was ruled by the military and feudal groups, racketeering
flourished. This government was toppled soon, and the new government
gradually eliminated the military and feudal groups and established
law and order based not on the Constitution and legislation but
agreements between different groups, quotas. A criminal and oligarchic
system emerged which shared all the resources of Armenia.
Each representative of this system became the prince of an area,
defining the laws and appointing the government. This is not local
self-government according to the democratic definition but feudal rule
which is an anti-state activity, in fact.
Now this system is collapsing, old agreements are not observed, new
ones cannot be achieved. The reasons are different and a different
story. The only way of protecting their own life and property is to
look for a new master who will ensure their security. And they are
ready to give their master a treasure which is not theirs but the
future generations'.
Following the steps of the so-called economic and political elite, one
can see the same scenario. The Armenian state is on the same path, in
the same vicious circle. Evidence to this is the fuss for joining the
Eurasian Union in return for personal guarantees from Putin. They will
again surrender what does not belong to them, which they have grabbed
though crimes against their own state and people.
State building is a difficult job, requires devotion, self-denial,
dream, inner powerful culture.
Haik Aramyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments27104.html
Published: 19:42:50 - 15/08/2012
Throughout history the creation and decline of the Armenian states
followed the same scenario. At least, in the past 2000 years the
people of the east of Armenia, Syunik and Artsakh, began and headed
the fight for liberation which resulted in an independent or
half-independent state and forming of a government. More than other
provinces, Syunik and Artsakh retained the ethnic Armenian element and
cells of independence, the instinct and aspiration to build an
independent state, had more or less efficient military. It allowed
restoring the Armenian state in different stages of history.
However, the government of Armenia shortly lost control over the
domestic situation. The statehood `inertia' of the empire ran out and
processes of degradation started in the country which was led by the
Apostolic Church and the princes of other provinces which accrue some
resource during independence, refuse to obey the central government
and try to retain their influence with the help of external forces.
Propaganda headed by the Apostolic Church was put to use to justify
and beatify the centrifugal tendency.
The modern stage of the Armenian state seems to follow the same
scenario. The movement for the liberation of Karabakh was followed by
the establishment of the independent Armenian state. A government was
formed which was unable to establish rule of law and further
strengthen independence.
The country was ruled by the military and feudal groups, racketeering
flourished. This government was toppled soon, and the new government
gradually eliminated the military and feudal groups and established
law and order based not on the Constitution and legislation but
agreements between different groups, quotas. A criminal and oligarchic
system emerged which shared all the resources of Armenia.
Each representative of this system became the prince of an area,
defining the laws and appointing the government. This is not local
self-government according to the democratic definition but feudal rule
which is an anti-state activity, in fact.
Now this system is collapsing, old agreements are not observed, new
ones cannot be achieved. The reasons are different and a different
story. The only way of protecting their own life and property is to
look for a new master who will ensure their security. And they are
ready to give their master a treasure which is not theirs but the
future generations'.
Following the steps of the so-called economic and political elite, one
can see the same scenario. The Armenian state is on the same path, in
the same vicious circle. Evidence to this is the fuss for joining the
Eurasian Union in return for personal guarantees from Putin. They will
again surrender what does not belong to them, which they have grabbed
though crimes against their own state and people.
State building is a difficult job, requires devotion, self-denial,
dream, inner powerful culture.