Tweet
Is This How Our Free and Independent Armenia Should Be?
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/11/02/is-this-how-our-free-and-independent-armenia-should-be/
By Michael Mensoian // November 2, 2013
Let's begin by saying that we are proud to have a free and independent
Armenia. That our country has been able to survive a brutal baptism,
overcoming the devastating Spitak earthquake in 1988 during the waning days
of the Soviet Union and the catastrophic collapse of its economy when the
Bolshevik's socioeconomic experiment in state building self-destructed. It
was an experiment that ignored accepted economic principles and the
inextinguishable desire and determination of captive ethnic people to
maintain their unique cultures. In addition to these significant obstacles,
from its very inception Armenia was caught between its dependence on Moscow
and its interest in strengthening its relationship with the West.
During these 22 tumultuous years, the three administrations that have
governed Armenia have been challenged to balance the country's independence
with the demands of Russian interests in the South Caucasus; the genocidal
proclivity of Turkish-Azeri leaders; and the realization that its future is
best oriented toward Western Europe. During these years the country has had
all of the trappings that characterize a going political entity. Progress
has been made and if we were to compare the Armenia of today with the
Armenia of some 20 years ago, the progress has been palpable.
However, having noted the success in maintaining this precarious balance
and the progress that has been made, it would be unfair to gloss over the
adverse impact that these same administrations have had on Armenia and its
people. Some blame for what currently plagues Armenia lies with the
opposition parties and their respective leadership. How the blame is
apportioned is unimportant. The fact that there is blame to share is
important.
A recent conference organized by the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs
and the UN Office in Armenia was held in Yerevan to explore the demographic
challenges facing the country. For the administration to have its Labor and
Social Affairs Ministry hold or even participate in such a conference is
the height of cynicism: It is the unholy alliance between the ruling
Republican Party and the oligarchs that has prolonged and intensified the
economic malaise that plagues Armenia, and that is responsible for the
demographic challenges the conference was to consider.
Yet, Deputy Minister Ara Petrosyan carried out his ministerial duties by
citing the `Spitak earthquake=85the collapse of the Soviet Union, the
Karabagh War, and the transport blockade imposed by Azerbaijan and Turkey'
as reasons Armenia has such a high level of poverty and unemployment.
Another factor for the serious decline in the annual population count is
the below replacement-level fertility rate. The low birth rate in Armenia
is not necessarily the same reason for the low birth rate that the
conferees cited for developed countries, where opportunity costs are a
significant factor in delaying marriages as well as encouraging lower birth
rates. A study introduced by one of the participants `revealed that
emigration of young=85[Armenians] is determined by the lack of opportunities
for professional growth and development, as well as the wish to live in a
society with better protection of human rights, democracy, and governance.'
An endless number of studies on countries experiencing similar problems
already cite these same reasons.
Another survey introduced during the conference indicated that emigration
was encouraged by `systemic issues such as centralization of business and
monopolies and issues in education and the judicial sector.' In addition,
`the business sector is handled by a group of people who are also directly
involved in public administration, supervising specific areas or sectors of
the economy. This makes smaller competitors vulnerable, causing
unemployment and unequal distribution of income throughout society.' Should
any of these conclusions really come as a revelation to members of
parliament and representatives of relevant government agencies who were in
attendance, or to the opposition political leaders who sat on the sidelines
while the very reasons cited were taking root.
The same tired excuse that the closed border with Turkey and Azerbaijan has
been a contributing factor to Armenia's problems was mentioned again. This
excuse will never die. Armenia did not close the border and if Turkey had
allowed it to remain open, Armenia would have been overwhelmed by a Turkish
economy that can out-produce at a lower per unit cost practically anything
that Armenia produces or is likely to produce. Consider that Turkey's Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) is over 45 times greater than Armenia's GDP. The
argument in support of an open border is that it would reduce the cost of
goods that Armenians purchase. True, but how does Armenia pay for these
goods? Since when is having an unfavorable balance of payment situation
sound economics? Do proponents of an open border suggest that Turkey
exploit workers in Armenia to produce the goods Armenians need? Who
benefits? The Turkish businessman, or our connected politicians and
oligarchs, or both. An open border without proper safeguards (which are
most likely to be determined by the same unholy alliance of politicians and
oligarchs that rule Armenia) would not benefit the Armenian worker and his
family. In all likelihood, the Turkish lira would replace the Armenian dram
as the currency of choice. Like Russia, Turkey would serve as a second
magnet attracting our young people in search of employment and other
opportunities.
Unfortunately, one can easily be misled by the veneer of vitality observed
in Yerevan, which successfully masks the problems that engulf our country.
The level of economic development in the country is inflated by the
development that is taking place in our mayrakaghak (capital
city) - development, by the way, that follows no comprehensive master plan
other than to meet the profit motive of entrenched politicians and
oligarchs. This development does very little to reduce the high level of
poverty or unemployment; or to increase the limited educational and
professional opportunities for our young people; or to stem the flow of
individuals and families forced to leave Armenia in search of a better life.
Some opposition political parties have announced that they are prepared to
address the demographic challenges that Armenia faces. Although the intent
is sincere, it is based on an unrealistic assessment of the situation. The
demographic challenges - stemming emigration and the below replacement-level
fertility rate - are inextricably tied to a culture of governance where
corruption and favoritism permeate all aspects of the economic, political,
and judicial systems.
Sad to say, the political parties are in no position to lead a movement for
change. Let's consider the various groups required for any effort to
succeed. First and most important are the opposition leaders. Who among
them has the charisma and the influence to create a working coalition of
the required constituencies? Consider that there is no significant working
relationship between any major opposition party and the various groups of
activists. This should be the first step in broadening the base of any
political party that is genuinely concerned with seeking change. Gaining
the support of the electorate would seem to be a priority of the first
order. If the people who are affected by existing conditions cannot be
mobilized, what chance is there for change to occur? As it is, a
significant number of voters most likely have no appetite for confrontation
or have legitimate reasons to stay above the fray. Consider that some one
million voters did not participate in the 2013 presidential election.
The third group essential to creating change lives is the diaspora. A firm
relationship between opposition leaders and diasporan leaders is, at best,
a work in progress. Two subsets of leaders can be identified: There are the
wealthy philanthropists who work independently with government and
religious leaders in Armenia to underwrite their personal projects. And
there is a second group of leaders who head the various organizations that
solicit funds and channel humanitarian, technological, and financial aid to
Armenia and its people. The projects that are being funded and the aid that
is being provided are important. However, in large part it is a band-aid
approach because it responds primarily to the immediate needs of the
people, such as medical services, meals for the elderly, making potable
water available, environmental rehabilitation, housing, etc. These are
among the many needs that the administration has failed to address.
Underwriting projects and providing aid without any attempt to address the
policies, corruption, and the oligarchic and oligopolistic systems that are
directly responsible for the poverty, unemployment, and demographic
situation that so desparately requires this aid does little to empower the
people so that they can build a better Armenia and improve their quality of
life.
Diasporan leaders have a duty to weigh-in and lend their support to a
legitimate opposition movement. Many of these diasporan leaders have the
ear of the president and the Catholicos, meeting regularly when occasions
demand or when receiving a medal in recognition of their service. Each of
us has a moral responsibility to help our country. There can be no excuse,
when we have the opportunity, to turn a blind eye to what we know is the
cause for the debilitating conditions affecting our people.
The final group that is a key to real change includes the president and the
oligarchs who are the beneficiaries of the economic malaise they have
created. Unfortunately it is not likely that they will acknowledge their
avarice as being responsible for the existing conditions in Armenia and
voluntarily change course.
We are a people with a brilliant history that extends over millennia who
have overcome adversity so many times in our past. But today, we seem to be
willing to sit idly by as our country withers slowly and possibly
irretrievably into oblivion. This is neither an over dramatization or an
exaggeration of existing conditions in mer mayreni yergir. Our problem is
that the opposition leaders (group 1) talk a good game, but the results
never live up to their rhetoric. The electorate (group 2), except for
energetic groups of activists, for the most part has no sustained appetite
for confrontation or believes there is no credible opposition to lead them.
Based on past experiences, they have reason to believe it would be a futile
effort. The diasporan leaders (group 3) are hesitant, or worse, do not
believe that they should be involved in the internal politics of Armenia.
They are doing their duty by underwriting their personal projects or
funneling aid to our brothers and sisters in need. The only committed,
determined entity in all of this is the ruling party and the oligarchs
(group 4) who form the power structure that is the root-cause of the
problems. They will not voluntarily participate in any effort to change a
system they oversee that would jeopardize the wealth and influence they
enjoy.
Until an effective movement can be formed where there is trust and
understanding between the opposition political leaders, representative
sectors of the electorate, and key diasporan leaders, our people will
continue to experience these unacceptable and demoralizing conditions. Is
this what our free and independent Armenia should be?
From: Baghdasarian
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/11/02/is-this-how-our-free-and-independent-armenia-should-be/
By Michael Mensoian // November 2, 2013
Let's begin by saying that we are proud to have a free and independent
Armenia. That our country has been able to survive a brutal baptism,
overcoming the devastating Spitak earthquake in 1988 during the waning days
of the Soviet Union and the catastrophic collapse of its economy when the
Bolshevik's socioeconomic experiment in state building self-destructed. It
was an experiment that ignored accepted economic principles and the
inextinguishable desire and determination of captive ethnic people to
maintain their unique cultures. In addition to these significant obstacles,
from its very inception Armenia was caught between its dependence on Moscow
and its interest in strengthening its relationship with the West.
During these 22 tumultuous years, the three administrations that have
governed Armenia have been challenged to balance the country's independence
with the demands of Russian interests in the South Caucasus; the genocidal
proclivity of Turkish-Azeri leaders; and the realization that its future is
best oriented toward Western Europe. During these years the country has had
all of the trappings that characterize a going political entity. Progress
has been made and if we were to compare the Armenia of today with the
Armenia of some 20 years ago, the progress has been palpable.
However, having noted the success in maintaining this precarious balance
and the progress that has been made, it would be unfair to gloss over the
adverse impact that these same administrations have had on Armenia and its
people. Some blame for what currently plagues Armenia lies with the
opposition parties and their respective leadership. How the blame is
apportioned is unimportant. The fact that there is blame to share is
important.
A recent conference organized by the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs
and the UN Office in Armenia was held in Yerevan to explore the demographic
challenges facing the country. For the administration to have its Labor and
Social Affairs Ministry hold or even participate in such a conference is
the height of cynicism: It is the unholy alliance between the ruling
Republican Party and the oligarchs that has prolonged and intensified the
economic malaise that plagues Armenia, and that is responsible for the
demographic challenges the conference was to consider.
Yet, Deputy Minister Ara Petrosyan carried out his ministerial duties by
citing the `Spitak earthquake=85the collapse of the Soviet Union, the
Karabagh War, and the transport blockade imposed by Azerbaijan and Turkey'
as reasons Armenia has such a high level of poverty and unemployment.
Another factor for the serious decline in the annual population count is
the below replacement-level fertility rate. The low birth rate in Armenia
is not necessarily the same reason for the low birth rate that the
conferees cited for developed countries, where opportunity costs are a
significant factor in delaying marriages as well as encouraging lower birth
rates. A study introduced by one of the participants `revealed that
emigration of young=85[Armenians] is determined by the lack of opportunities
for professional growth and development, as well as the wish to live in a
society with better protection of human rights, democracy, and governance.'
An endless number of studies on countries experiencing similar problems
already cite these same reasons.
Another survey introduced during the conference indicated that emigration
was encouraged by `systemic issues such as centralization of business and
monopolies and issues in education and the judicial sector.' In addition,
`the business sector is handled by a group of people who are also directly
involved in public administration, supervising specific areas or sectors of
the economy. This makes smaller competitors vulnerable, causing
unemployment and unequal distribution of income throughout society.' Should
any of these conclusions really come as a revelation to members of
parliament and representatives of relevant government agencies who were in
attendance, or to the opposition political leaders who sat on the sidelines
while the very reasons cited were taking root.
The same tired excuse that the closed border with Turkey and Azerbaijan has
been a contributing factor to Armenia's problems was mentioned again. This
excuse will never die. Armenia did not close the border and if Turkey had
allowed it to remain open, Armenia would have been overwhelmed by a Turkish
economy that can out-produce at a lower per unit cost practically anything
that Armenia produces or is likely to produce. Consider that Turkey's Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) is over 45 times greater than Armenia's GDP. The
argument in support of an open border is that it would reduce the cost of
goods that Armenians purchase. True, but how does Armenia pay for these
goods? Since when is having an unfavorable balance of payment situation
sound economics? Do proponents of an open border suggest that Turkey
exploit workers in Armenia to produce the goods Armenians need? Who
benefits? The Turkish businessman, or our connected politicians and
oligarchs, or both. An open border without proper safeguards (which are
most likely to be determined by the same unholy alliance of politicians and
oligarchs that rule Armenia) would not benefit the Armenian worker and his
family. In all likelihood, the Turkish lira would replace the Armenian dram
as the currency of choice. Like Russia, Turkey would serve as a second
magnet attracting our young people in search of employment and other
opportunities.
Unfortunately, one can easily be misled by the veneer of vitality observed
in Yerevan, which successfully masks the problems that engulf our country.
The level of economic development in the country is inflated by the
development that is taking place in our mayrakaghak (capital
city) - development, by the way, that follows no comprehensive master plan
other than to meet the profit motive of entrenched politicians and
oligarchs. This development does very little to reduce the high level of
poverty or unemployment; or to increase the limited educational and
professional opportunities for our young people; or to stem the flow of
individuals and families forced to leave Armenia in search of a better life.
Some opposition political parties have announced that they are prepared to
address the demographic challenges that Armenia faces. Although the intent
is sincere, it is based on an unrealistic assessment of the situation. The
demographic challenges - stemming emigration and the below replacement-level
fertility rate - are inextricably tied to a culture of governance where
corruption and favoritism permeate all aspects of the economic, political,
and judicial systems.
Sad to say, the political parties are in no position to lead a movement for
change. Let's consider the various groups required for any effort to
succeed. First and most important are the opposition leaders. Who among
them has the charisma and the influence to create a working coalition of
the required constituencies? Consider that there is no significant working
relationship between any major opposition party and the various groups of
activists. This should be the first step in broadening the base of any
political party that is genuinely concerned with seeking change. Gaining
the support of the electorate would seem to be a priority of the first
order. If the people who are affected by existing conditions cannot be
mobilized, what chance is there for change to occur? As it is, a
significant number of voters most likely have no appetite for confrontation
or have legitimate reasons to stay above the fray. Consider that some one
million voters did not participate in the 2013 presidential election.
The third group essential to creating change lives is the diaspora. A firm
relationship between opposition leaders and diasporan leaders is, at best,
a work in progress. Two subsets of leaders can be identified: There are the
wealthy philanthropists who work independently with government and
religious leaders in Armenia to underwrite their personal projects. And
there is a second group of leaders who head the various organizations that
solicit funds and channel humanitarian, technological, and financial aid to
Armenia and its people. The projects that are being funded and the aid that
is being provided are important. However, in large part it is a band-aid
approach because it responds primarily to the immediate needs of the
people, such as medical services, meals for the elderly, making potable
water available, environmental rehabilitation, housing, etc. These are
among the many needs that the administration has failed to address.
Underwriting projects and providing aid without any attempt to address the
policies, corruption, and the oligarchic and oligopolistic systems that are
directly responsible for the poverty, unemployment, and demographic
situation that so desparately requires this aid does little to empower the
people so that they can build a better Armenia and improve their quality of
life.
Diasporan leaders have a duty to weigh-in and lend their support to a
legitimate opposition movement. Many of these diasporan leaders have the
ear of the president and the Catholicos, meeting regularly when occasions
demand or when receiving a medal in recognition of their service. Each of
us has a moral responsibility to help our country. There can be no excuse,
when we have the opportunity, to turn a blind eye to what we know is the
cause for the debilitating conditions affecting our people.
The final group that is a key to real change includes the president and the
oligarchs who are the beneficiaries of the economic malaise they have
created. Unfortunately it is not likely that they will acknowledge their
avarice as being responsible for the existing conditions in Armenia and
voluntarily change course.
We are a people with a brilliant history that extends over millennia who
have overcome adversity so many times in our past. But today, we seem to be
willing to sit idly by as our country withers slowly and possibly
irretrievably into oblivion. This is neither an over dramatization or an
exaggeration of existing conditions in mer mayreni yergir. Our problem is
that the opposition leaders (group 1) talk a good game, but the results
never live up to their rhetoric. The electorate (group 2), except for
energetic groups of activists, for the most part has no sustained appetite
for confrontation or believes there is no credible opposition to lead them.
Based on past experiences, they have reason to believe it would be a futile
effort. The diasporan leaders (group 3) are hesitant, or worse, do not
believe that they should be involved in the internal politics of Armenia.
They are doing their duty by underwriting their personal projects or
funneling aid to our brothers and sisters in need. The only committed,
determined entity in all of this is the ruling party and the oligarchs
(group 4) who form the power structure that is the root-cause of the
problems. They will not voluntarily participate in any effort to change a
system they oversee that would jeopardize the wealth and influence they
enjoy.
Until an effective movement can be formed where there is trust and
understanding between the opposition political leaders, representative
sectors of the electorate, and key diasporan leaders, our people will
continue to experience these unacceptable and demoralizing conditions. Is
this what our free and independent Armenia should be?
From: Baghdasarian