Opening…for Dynamic Leader, Consensus Builder

Able to Inspire and Work with Diverse Groups

Armenia reminds me of an idyllic lake. The feel-good news that comes from Armenia is eagerly accepted because we want our country to succeed, but like the placid surface of the lake, the good news hides the turbulence that lies below. There has to come a time when we realize that Armenia’s future cannot substantially improve until the symbiotic relationship between one-party rule and the oligarchs it sustains is broken. Although Moscow may control our external relations for the present, it should not be an excuse for allowing the existing internal situation that saps our strength and condemns us to mediocrity to continue.

If there is to be a viable opposition coalition, the need remains to find a dynamic leader, passionate for reform, a consensus builder able to inspire and work with diverse groups. As yet, no party or coalition of parties has presented a viable candidate. The resignation of Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan, whether voluntary or forced, requires President Serge Sarkisian to name a replacement who will have three weeks to form a new cabinet. The opposition coalition formed by the Prosperous Party, the Armenian National Congress, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, and the Heritage Party has taken credit for the resignation. All well and good. It is about time that these opposition parties decided to work together. However, it remains to be seen how effectively they can mesh their respective strengths and adhere to a common agenda. Any opportunistic effort by coalition members to chart their own course against a seasoned politician like President Sarkisian will render the coalition ineffective and allow him to play one party against another.

Armenia needs a dedicated opposition to mobilize the electorate to support reform. The naming of Hovik Abrahamian, the present parliamentary speaker, as the new prime minister and a reshuffling of cabinet positions does nothing to end one-party rule, or the dominant role of the oligarchs, or the corruption and favoritism that is an integral part of governance, nor to address the gross inequities in the distribution of national wealth, etc. Whatever changes in cabinet appointments will be, at best, cosmetic in nature. As Parliamentary Speaker Abrahamian is Sarkisian’s alter ego in parliament. With 69 votes plus 6 members from the Rule of Law Party that vote with the majority, Sarkisian controls 75 seats out of the 131 seats in parliament. He has the votes to continue setting his own course.

Seeking reform is a daunting task that must first overcome the reluctance of the people to confront authority. Added to this is the fact that within Armenia there is a segment of the population that does not have to be concerned about being employed, or earning an adequate income, not about the education and job prospects of their children or the availability of adequate housing or medical care. Since these individuals and families have little or no reason to view existing conditions with trepidation, they cannot be expected to be ardent supporters for reform. However, on the other side of what is a sharp divide are the socioeconomically disenfranchised segment of the population and the social activists who seek to redress the numerous shortcomings of the administration.

This disenfranchised segment of the population carries the burden of poverty within Armenia that continues to hover above 30 percent; unemployment and underemployment annually exceeds 20 percent. Many young people and families within this segment are literally forced to emigrate to seek a better life, as are fathers and husbands who must seek employment in other countries to support their families. Many live in substandard housing—some since the Spitak earthquake that occurred more than two decades ago—and most have limited access to the medical delivery system. More specifically, this includes miners earning substandard wages in poorly regulated extractive operations that degrade the environment, exposing both the workers and nearby populations to a range of debilitating health problems. It also includes those vulnerable young women who must leave the orphanage at age 18 without sufficient transitional facilities that would provide them with the necessary social and economic skills before entering society. There are more examples, if more are thought to be required.

There can be no question that present conditions are the outcome of the 70 stultifying years Armenia survived under an ersatz economic system conceived to meet the political objectives of the Bolshevik new order. The legacy of those presumably prosperous years is the root cause of the malaise that grips Armenia today. Others are quick to say in defense of existing conditions that the problems vexing Armenia are no different than those that perplex so many other countries. Neither explanation should serve to justify existing conditions.

The fact that corruption and favoritism permeates every aspect of life in Armenia, whether economic, political, or juridical, should not be rationalized as a necessary transformational stage in our country’s development. At what point does institutionalized corruption and favoritism destroy the moral and ethical fabric of a nation, replacing hope with indifference? At that point mediocrity becomes an acceptable objective. The longer these insidious conditions remain integral to governance, the difficulty to effect needed reform through peaceful means increases exponentially.

As frustration builds, especially among the younger element of the population whose options are either diminished or perhaps foreclosed, demonstrations over mundane issues can easily escalate in intensity and purpose, as well as expand geographically. And just as important, there can never be any guarantee as to how the authorities will respond. Armenians are fiercely independent, conservative, and passive with respect to confronting authority. This is both a hindrance to effecting any movement for reform, as well as an asset in preventing spontaneous anti-government outbursts that could become radicalized with tragic consequences.

For any political party or opposition coalition to believe that it presently has the influence to effect reform without having effectively mobilized citizen support is shortsighted. Organizing support at the grassroots level is a tedious, but necessary task. The influence of any opposition movement will be directly proportional to its ability to fill the streets of Yerevan if necessary with at least 70,000 to 80,000 citizens supporting reform. Admittedly, this is an extremely difficult requirement for a party or a coalition to meet, but it is no more than what reality demands. Unfortunately, reform is not going to come because political parties want it. It will not come because it is necessary. It will come when the citizens are willing to support it. For the leadership of any party or opposition coalition to believe that it now has the ability to affect any change is seriously misreading what is required.

The fact that one million voters did not cast ballots during the 2013 presidential election speaks as much to their resignation that fraudulent practices by the governing party would ensure the reelection of President Sarkisian, as it does to their cynicism that the political parties and their leaders either lack the ability or the commitment—or both—to represent their legitimate concerns. As we have seen in parliamentary and presidential elections, once that perception has been established in the minds of the voter, those political parties become strictly marginal players in the political process. Four of the 6 parties represented in parliament have a combined total of only 23 seats, attesting to this fact.

One need not be prescient to know that the present administration will have its anointed standard bearer elected in the 2018 presidential election. Given this expected result, Armenia will continue to be governed as an oligarchy until 2023 (almost a decade from now) with the added prospect of former President Sarkisian possibly occupying a more powerful position as prime minister, assuming that contemplated changes take place. And what will the domestic prospects for Armenia be during these years? And for the years that follow? If the political parties cannot develop a close, harmonious working relationship and begin building support within the electorate, especially with the disenfranchised and the incoming generations, little is likely to change.

The malaise that afflicts Armenia cannot be cured until the power of the monopolists is curtailed; a more equitable distribution of national wealth (income, housing, medical services, education, employment opportunities, etc.) is crafted; and the personal guarantees declared in the constitution are objectively enforced. The reform required is not necessarily in the type of government, but in one-party governance that ignores the constitution at will, sustains the oligarchs, and allows corruption and favoritism to serve political ends. It remains to be seen how the appointment of Hovik Abrahamian to replace Tigran Sargsyan as prime minister and the formation of a new cabinet will change any of this.

Movement toward a more democratic form of governance and the strengthening of the country’s economic foundation must take place. For the time being, shifting our orientation from East to West is not an option. At present our military is supported by Russia, which is “home” to the largest concentration of Armenians outside the Homeland. Not only is it a major source of investments in Armenia, it also controls the country’s basic infrastructure and is the major supplier of heating fuel. This should be a period during which the groundwork for reform can begin. Whatever changes that may take place in Armenia, our dependence on Russia will remain. The absolute need is to prepare for whatever may occur in the future that is important. For the present, this relationship may well be the most beneficial for Armenia.

Without the backing of thousands of citizens willing to take to the streets if necessary, no single party or coalition can be effective in curtailing one-party rule. When that is achieved, the stranglehold that the oligarchs have on the economic system can be brought under control, thus eliminating the artificial restraints that were openly and covertly used to protect their economic interests. Free of these restraints, investment opportunities will be largely determined by the marketplace. Armenia is not devoid of the necessary human and natural resources to support a robust economy, certainly an economy that could significantly expand production and improve productivity to provide employment opportunities to a wider spectrum of workers based on age, skill, and education in both the farm and non-farm sectors of the economy. An expanding economy would encourage family formation, increase the birth rate, and put an end to the demographic hemorrhaging that is weakening our country year by year.

The struggle we have been engaged in since the devastation wrought upon us by the Armenian Genocide is still with us. That struggle must first be won in Armenia. The fortunes of Artsakh, Javakhk, and yes, even Hai Tahd, are intimately tied to an economically stronger democratic Armenia whose citizens are empowered to participate in the development of their country. Before this can happen the opposition, whether a single party or a coalition, if there is one in more than name only, needsa dynamic leader, passionate for reform, who is a consensus builder able to inspire and work with diverse groups. Can it be that over two decades of independence has yet to develop a cadre of potential candidates?

• Bio
• Latest Posts

Michael Mensoian

Michael Mensoian, J.D./Ph.D, is professor emeritus in Middle East and political geography at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and a retired major in the U.S. army. He writes regularly for the Armenian Weekly.

Latest posts by Michael Mensoian (see all)

• Facing the Reality that is Artsakh - August 6, 2020
• Tourism: An Economic Tide That Can Lift All “Boats” - January 29, 2020
• The Legacy of the Hairenik and the Armenian Weekly - January 7, 2020