Tweet
THE ROOTS OF FEUDALISM
http://www.aravot.am/en/2012/11/14/130153/
NOVEMBER 14, 2012 13:10
I have already written that there is no feudalism in Armenia in the
academic sense of the word - i.e. a system that is based on closed,
natural economy and simple exchange of goods. When we say "feudalism,"
we mean the figurative meaning of the word - a system established on
the given territory, a relationship, in which one person has
unlimited,
uncontrollable power and affords to behave like a medieval feudal
lord. For example, he shouts "Who is the man who will be able to
topple me?" or orders his bodyguard to kill a man who greeted him
incorrectly. Or he beats up guilty people, being convinced that
nothing will happen to him, the feudal lord.
In that sense, there is a so-called "feudal" system in Armenia and
Robert Kocharyan is right that majoritarian representation contributes
to that system - in the pre-election period, the feudal lord is
engaged in "charity," mobilizes the whole law-enforcement and
administrative resource and guarantees the victory of the government's
team. However, firstly, I can't recall that the second president was
so opposed to the majoritarian system when he was in power, and
secondly, the electoral system of the National Assembly is not the
most important factor that contributes to feudalism.
I don't want to simplify and personify the issue, writing about what
is on the surface - the Armenian feudalism advanced, flourished and
gained the current image during Robert Kocharyan's tenure. However, if
the roots of the problem had been in the presidents' "political will,"
we would have gotten rid of those morals long ago. The worst thing is
that if, God forbid, I or, say, Avetik Ishkhanyan was the president of
the republic, we would contribute to maintaining feudalism too.
This system emerges not because the leaders and their "viziers" want
it, not even because the feudal lords want it. The main reason is what
the overwhelming majority of our population expects from the
government. It expects that it will patronize, look after and take
care of them. If a person expects a patron who will be kind, powerful
and forgiving, who can play that role, besides a feudal lord?
By the way, that expectation dominates the social atmosphere - the
majority of citizens don't care much about the rest. Yesterday, for
example, the Court of Appeals made an absolutely illegal decision. How
many people protested against it? The very people who don't protest
contribute to feudalism.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
http://www.aravot.am/en/2012/11/14/130153/
NOVEMBER 14, 2012 13:10
I have already written that there is no feudalism in Armenia in the
academic sense of the word - i.e. a system that is based on closed,
natural economy and simple exchange of goods. When we say "feudalism,"
we mean the figurative meaning of the word - a system established on
the given territory, a relationship, in which one person has
unlimited,
uncontrollable power and affords to behave like a medieval feudal
lord. For example, he shouts "Who is the man who will be able to
topple me?" or orders his bodyguard to kill a man who greeted him
incorrectly. Or he beats up guilty people, being convinced that
nothing will happen to him, the feudal lord.
In that sense, there is a so-called "feudal" system in Armenia and
Robert Kocharyan is right that majoritarian representation contributes
to that system - in the pre-election period, the feudal lord is
engaged in "charity," mobilizes the whole law-enforcement and
administrative resource and guarantees the victory of the government's
team. However, firstly, I can't recall that the second president was
so opposed to the majoritarian system when he was in power, and
secondly, the electoral system of the National Assembly is not the
most important factor that contributes to feudalism.
I don't want to simplify and personify the issue, writing about what
is on the surface - the Armenian feudalism advanced, flourished and
gained the current image during Robert Kocharyan's tenure. However, if
the roots of the problem had been in the presidents' "political will,"
we would have gotten rid of those morals long ago. The worst thing is
that if, God forbid, I or, say, Avetik Ishkhanyan was the president of
the republic, we would contribute to maintaining feudalism too.
This system emerges not because the leaders and their "viziers" want
it, not even because the feudal lords want it. The main reason is what
the overwhelming majority of our population expects from the
government. It expects that it will patronize, look after and take
care of them. If a person expects a patron who will be kind, powerful
and forgiving, who can play that role, besides a feudal lord?
By the way, that expectation dominates the social atmosphere - the
majority of citizens don't care much about the rest. Yesterday, for
example, the Court of Appeals made an absolutely illegal decision. How
many people protested against it? The very people who don't protest
contribute to feudalism.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN