Tweet
King Is Not Only Naked But Also Miserable
Levon Margaryan
17:18 28/12/2012
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/comments/view/28543
The behavior of the Armenian National Congress is a model of the
Armenian political field. For example, if Serzh Sargsyan rejects his
active role in the RPA and so does Tsarukyan in the PAP, these parties
will crash just like the ANC.
Perhaps only the ARF still preserves elements of collective decision
making and partisanship thanks to its internal culture. Regardless of
all, the foreign factor of the ARF keeps it within some ideological
framework which may be old or inactive or lifeless but keeps leaders
carrying everything on their shoulders predictable.
The situation with the Heritage is not clear but there is not a
well-established party system with its hierarchies, which was
indicated by the recent parliamentary election. Let us leave aside the
example of the ARF because it is marginal from the classical and
practical political field and acts as a pan-Armenian project rather
than a party in the internal context of the Republic of Armenia.
The RPA is lucky because its zero party system has been substituted by
the occupation of the public administration bodies. It is clear that
after losing power the RPA will find itself in the same situation with
the ANC.
Certainly, the RPA cannot compare with the ANC in terms of the degree
of person-centeredness due to different motivations - business, power.
However, the abilities and responsibility of leaders is overestimated
across the entire field. In addition, the PAP is also dominated by a
person's ambitions rather than the party ideology. Although the RPA
has adopted a certain ideology, namely the ideology of Garegin
Nezhdeh, it has gradually wasted this ideology. In fact, the RPA has
not taken power on the basis of this ideology but on the basis of
certain individual and corporate economic interests.
The motivations for focus on leaders of political forces are
different. In the case of Serzh Sargsyan it is a chance to be beside
the higher level of government. In the case of Gagik Tsarukyan, it is
some economic and social protection. In the case of Levon
Ter-Petrosyan it is ultimate faith, eternal hope, other irrational
feelings to politics for the victory of the opposition and change of
government. These are the internal affairs of these forces.
The issue is somewhere else. With huge resource spent, the parties
which have taken a big political start have reached the same place
with the same results. In the ANC there is no motivation besides
unification around Ter-Petrosyan. The PAP plays or keeps silent
through Tsarukyan, the RPA through unification around the idea of
power which will expire in 2018 when it will be necessary to find a
new candidate who will unite everyone, which is impossible.
What is the reason? Why is the political field of Armenia conditioned
by `strong' individuals and is devastated as soon as the individuals
abandon it? Is it impossible to create a party system which will be
able to make a fast decision immediately after the departure of Levon
Ter-Petrosyan or Serzh Sargsyan and promote someone who will be able
to keep pressure high and influence the leader's decisions, not vice
versa.
This is a conceptual problem of political culture. This culture is
established in the public discourse where the society demands a strong
leader, focusing on one aspect at a time - intellect, strong hand, and
so on. The last haven is the same - a superman, a hero.
Experience shows that the ARF with its system of collective decision
making is not good at intrigues during the presidential elections,
using it as a means of evidencing its own presence and raising its
political weight. The presence of strong leaders in such systems has
`good aspects', for example, shifting the whole responsibility on one
person, ruling out the activity of different teams.
For example, interestingly, the electorate is motivated more during
presidential elections than parliamentary elections, whereas the
contrary should be expected because a member of parliament is
responsible for the environment, quality of life, home, neighborhood,
utilities. Meanwhile, it is perceived as another boring legal
procedure.
This year there were two such political experiences and unfortunately
they did not become a culture or have not become yet. I mean This City
Belongs to Us and Save Mashtots Park initiatives. Both brought embryos
of a new strategy of political struggle, where the main merit was the
lack and rejection of ideas leading to a leader accepting
responsibility for everything and dominating everything. Naturally, at
some point of organization leaders appear who excel others. But when
the leaders occupy the first ten places in the team, and the players
come after number 10, the problem of overcoming a crisis is faced.
Armenia is already facing a crisis. Two leaders have left, leaving
behind their teams in an infantile game. The other leader has power
and is not leaving yet but when it is time to leave, we will see the
same situation. The political field with its resources cannot perform
the function of political parties and shape a culture which will
intensively modernize the party systems.
One of the main conceptual political questions is how to transform
situations based on the authority of leaders to party teams, impart
them with ideology and establish strong systems rather than a strong
person or hero. After all, when all responsibility lies with the
`king', the king is not only naked but also miserable.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Levon Margaryan
17:18 28/12/2012
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/comments/view/28543
The behavior of the Armenian National Congress is a model of the
Armenian political field. For example, if Serzh Sargsyan rejects his
active role in the RPA and so does Tsarukyan in the PAP, these parties
will crash just like the ANC.
Perhaps only the ARF still preserves elements of collective decision
making and partisanship thanks to its internal culture. Regardless of
all, the foreign factor of the ARF keeps it within some ideological
framework which may be old or inactive or lifeless but keeps leaders
carrying everything on their shoulders predictable.
The situation with the Heritage is not clear but there is not a
well-established party system with its hierarchies, which was
indicated by the recent parliamentary election. Let us leave aside the
example of the ARF because it is marginal from the classical and
practical political field and acts as a pan-Armenian project rather
than a party in the internal context of the Republic of Armenia.
The RPA is lucky because its zero party system has been substituted by
the occupation of the public administration bodies. It is clear that
after losing power the RPA will find itself in the same situation with
the ANC.
Certainly, the RPA cannot compare with the ANC in terms of the degree
of person-centeredness due to different motivations - business, power.
However, the abilities and responsibility of leaders is overestimated
across the entire field. In addition, the PAP is also dominated by a
person's ambitions rather than the party ideology. Although the RPA
has adopted a certain ideology, namely the ideology of Garegin
Nezhdeh, it has gradually wasted this ideology. In fact, the RPA has
not taken power on the basis of this ideology but on the basis of
certain individual and corporate economic interests.
The motivations for focus on leaders of political forces are
different. In the case of Serzh Sargsyan it is a chance to be beside
the higher level of government. In the case of Gagik Tsarukyan, it is
some economic and social protection. In the case of Levon
Ter-Petrosyan it is ultimate faith, eternal hope, other irrational
feelings to politics for the victory of the opposition and change of
government. These are the internal affairs of these forces.
The issue is somewhere else. With huge resource spent, the parties
which have taken a big political start have reached the same place
with the same results. In the ANC there is no motivation besides
unification around Ter-Petrosyan. The PAP plays or keeps silent
through Tsarukyan, the RPA through unification around the idea of
power which will expire in 2018 when it will be necessary to find a
new candidate who will unite everyone, which is impossible.
What is the reason? Why is the political field of Armenia conditioned
by `strong' individuals and is devastated as soon as the individuals
abandon it? Is it impossible to create a party system which will be
able to make a fast decision immediately after the departure of Levon
Ter-Petrosyan or Serzh Sargsyan and promote someone who will be able
to keep pressure high and influence the leader's decisions, not vice
versa.
This is a conceptual problem of political culture. This culture is
established in the public discourse where the society demands a strong
leader, focusing on one aspect at a time - intellect, strong hand, and
so on. The last haven is the same - a superman, a hero.
Experience shows that the ARF with its system of collective decision
making is not good at intrigues during the presidential elections,
using it as a means of evidencing its own presence and raising its
political weight. The presence of strong leaders in such systems has
`good aspects', for example, shifting the whole responsibility on one
person, ruling out the activity of different teams.
For example, interestingly, the electorate is motivated more during
presidential elections than parliamentary elections, whereas the
contrary should be expected because a member of parliament is
responsible for the environment, quality of life, home, neighborhood,
utilities. Meanwhile, it is perceived as another boring legal
procedure.
This year there were two such political experiences and unfortunately
they did not become a culture or have not become yet. I mean This City
Belongs to Us and Save Mashtots Park initiatives. Both brought embryos
of a new strategy of political struggle, where the main merit was the
lack and rejection of ideas leading to a leader accepting
responsibility for everything and dominating everything. Naturally, at
some point of organization leaders appear who excel others. But when
the leaders occupy the first ten places in the team, and the players
come after number 10, the problem of overcoming a crisis is faced.
Armenia is already facing a crisis. Two leaders have left, leaving
behind their teams in an infantile game. The other leader has power
and is not leaving yet but when it is time to leave, we will see the
same situation. The political field with its resources cannot perform
the function of political parties and shape a culture which will
intensively modernize the party systems.
One of the main conceptual political questions is how to transform
situations based on the authority of leaders to party teams, impart
them with ideology and establish strong systems rather than a strong
person or hero. After all, when all responsibility lies with the
`king', the king is not only naked but also miserable.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress