The latest report of the Human Freedom Index for 152 countries gives Armenia a surprisingly high score. The study was conducted jointly by the Cato Institute, Washington, D.C.; Fraser Institute, Vancouver, Canada; and Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom, Berlin, Germany. The 108-page comprehensive report ranks countries according to personal, civil, and economic freedoms enjoyed by their citizens.
The rankings are based on 76 distinct indicators grouped in 12 categories: rule of law; security and safety; movement; religion; association, assembly, and civil society; expression; relationships; size of government; legal system and property rights; access to sound money; freedom to trade internationally; and regulation of credit, labor, and business.
The top 10 countries, according to the Human Freedom Index, are Hong Kong, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Ireland, United Kingdom, and Sweden. The United States is in 20th place.
According to the figures released last week for the year 2012, Armenia ranks 53rd in the world, much higher than most of its neighbors, Azerbaijan (126th), Turkey (62nd), and Iran (152nd); and slightly behind Georgia (48th).
Armenia’s impressive overall ranking reveals an even more stunning score when one looks at the two major components of that ranking. Armenia occupies the 17th place in the world in economic freedom, and 70th in personal freedom!
The reason I qualified Armenia’s ranking as “surprising” is that most people would not have expected it to have such a high score, given the persistent criticism of its leadership by Armenians within and outside the country. While it is true that the Armenian government has many shortcomings and deserves to be criticized, we should acknowledge that the authorities must be doing something right for Armenia to outrank in the Human Freedom Index such influential countries as Argentina, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Kuwait, Mexico, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Ukraine, and Venezuela.
The only explanation for this dichotomy between people’s perception of Armenia and reality is that its officials have done a bad job of promoting the country’s positive accomplishments. Otherwise, most Armenians would not have such a negative impression of their homeland.
To illustrate this point, let’s take Singapore, a country that successfully promotes its achievements and is universally praised as a model of good governance, rapid economic development, and prosperous living conditions. While there is no question that this “Asian Tiger” has an impressive record of accomplishments, it is surprising that Singapore—ranked 43rd in the world—is only 10 places ahead of Armenia in the Human Freedom Index. If one pays attention to all the hype about Singapore, one would expect that country to be ranked in the top 10, while Armenia should be ranked 100, given the constant critical comments it receives.
As they say, “perception is reality.” In fact, perception is much more important than reality, because people judge everything on the basis of their own impression, regardless of how different it might be from reality. For example, in the past several years Armenia has been ranked higher than expected on several global reports. Yet, the Armenian government has never publicized these respectable rankings, thereby failing to create a positive image for the country which would attract tourists and investors from around the world.
Many of the countries that Armenia outranks are much more prosperous, yet they fall far behind in the Human Freedom Index, which can only mean that a country’s wealth—multi-billion dollar oil revenue, in the case of Azerbaijan—does not guarantee affluence or freedom for its citizens!
However, given Armenia’s relatively high ranking, its leadership can no longer use the excuse that the country’s development is handicapped due to limited financial and natural resources. Everything does not depend on money. Since Armenia is ranked 17th on economic freedom, there is no excuse for it to be ranked 70th on personal freedom. The latter index could be improved greatly without costing the state a single dollar. All it takes is caring government officials who are committed to improving the people’s welfare.
The biggest deficit of the Armenian leadership is not the lack of funds, but the lack of public trust. The authorities can regain citizens’ trust by working diligently to better their living conditions. Only then would the public’s positive perception match the reality of Armenia’s global rankings.
Harut Sassounian
*** Mr. Sassounian, thank you for another good observation of the Armenian leadership deficit and a complete lack of public trust in them., where is the caring Armenian soul..?
Encouraging development. As noted by Mr. Sassounian the gov’t could a better PR with the positive developments going on in the country.
Baron Sassounian. I would only add that there is more freedom (including political freedom) here in Armenia than in the US. As soon as this freedom permeates into the economic sector in the country as well (I believe in time it will) Armenia will be on the road to becoming the paradise that it once was. However, as you touched upon in your commentary, obstacles along Armenia’s development will not be the Turk but the Armenian. I say this because national/genetic traits that help Armenians succeed in foreign lands (i.e. tribalism, materialism, jealousy, arrogance, competitiveness, shrewdness, stubbornness, etc) are the same traits that will make things difficult for Armenia. Our people’s emotions, “otaramolutiun” and political illiteracy will not help either. With that said, while the tempo may be slow and at times eventful as a result of the above noted traits, Armenia is nevertheless on the right track.
” As soon as this freedom permeates into the economic sector in the country as well (I believe in time it will) ”
So what exactly are the economic problems in Armenia that you’re seeing? After reading your latest posts, you mention you’re in Hayastan. What are you seeing as the major issues facing Armenia’s economy?
Thank You Mr. Sassounian.
You validate what some of us have been saying on the pages of ArmenianWeekly for a long time about Armenia.
Despite the incessant badmouthing, digging up dirt, spreading despair and demoralization, defeatism, …by myriad outlets and individuals.
{The only explanation for this dichotomy between people’s perception of Armenia and reality is that its officials have done a bad job of promoting the country’s positive accomplishments. Otherwise, most Armenians would not have such a negative impression of their homeland}
It is true that RoA Gov could do more to promote the good they do.
But I don’t fault them too much for that.
They have a lot on their plate.
Both RoA and NKR are at war.
Our Nation’s young men are being KIA defending RoA and NKR.
Clearly, National defense is #1 priority.
RoA Gov has its hands full protecting 3+ million Armenians of RoA and NKR from the Turkic existential threat.
However, there is more to it than just RoA officials having done a bad job.
RoA is saturated with foreign NGOs, foreign owned alleged “Armenian” news outlets, TV outlets, radio stations – whose mission it is to sow distrust of the authorities and spread disinformation and despair.
To promote endless conflicts between citizenry and authorities.
To weaken State institutions.
How many know that Azatutyun.am (including TV and Radio) is a US owned and operated Neocon anti-Armenian site ?
They are not crude, nor obvious, but pretty easy to see their anti-Armenian, anti-Armenia bias if you know what you are looking for.
Most people though will just believe the subtle lies they spread about Armenia, not knowing better.
How many people know that Lragir.am is owned and operated by Open Society.
How many people know who finances Open Society ? György Schwartz, aka George Soros, a vile Anti-Christian bigot.
Yes, the same man who is behind the scenes of many “Colored Revolutions”. (he admitted, in a roundabout way, NGOs in Ukraine funded by him having a hand in Maidan: “…played an important part in events now”)*
Even some Diaspora Armenian web sites innocently just repeat misinformation/disinformation manufactured about RoA and NKR by these outlets (misinformation sourced from RFERL, for example).
So kudos to you Mr Sassounian for countering some of the anti-RoA disinformation and kudos to ArmenianWeekly for publishing it.
—-
* transcripts.cnn.com Aired May 25, 2014 – 10:00 ET
ZAKARIA: First on Ukraine, one of the things that many people recognized about you was that you during the revolutions of 1989 funded a lot of dissident activities, civil society groups in eastern Europe and Poland, the Czech Republic. Are you doing similar things in Ukraine?
SOROS: Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now.
Good job Avery. Every single one of Armenia’s doom and gloom prophets (i.e. those who enthusiastically spread destructive criticism in order to poison the Armenian spirit and turn the Armenian people against their leaders) are funded by Western money, be it government or private. “Azatutyun radio” was originally funded by the CIA. Today it is funded by the US government and it serves US government policy, not just Neocon interests. Neocons are just one destructive branch of the American empire. The other branch is America’s Neo-liberal extremists who are just as destructive as their conservative counterparts. The entire political/financial system in the US is evil. There is no political freedom in the US. There are no real elections in the US. Minus ONE political party and the US becomes a typical dictatorship. Both sides of the political fense in the US are designed to advance the imperial agenda of the handful of elites/lobbies that run the show behind the scenes.
“It is true that RoA Gov could do more to promote the good they do.
But I don’t fault them too much for that.
They have a lot on their plate.
Both RoA and NKR are at war.”
How much human and financial resources does it take to do good promotion and PR compared to the military and defense efforts Armenia and Artsakh are putting in every year? Pretty small I’m guessing. I don’t see how the war situation prevents the Armenian government from the positives going on in Armenia. Are you saying the Armenian government can only juggle a few things at a time?
A couple most recent examples.
How much effort would it take from the RoA government to conduct thorough investigation of the Syunik governor’s involvement in a murder and bring him to trial? Minimal, I guess. Instead, the former governor was reappointed to the post. Or take the murder of an Armenian family in Gyumri. How much effort would it take from the RoA government to declare mourning—if not national, then at least local, municipal—so it would partly restore public confidence in the government? Minimal, I guess.
People see these and many other misconducts and cover-ups and, as a consequence, their apathy/pessimism/negativity towards the government grows. Self-righteousness, political illiteracy, and narrow world view are not typically—and narrowly—Armenian national features. They are characteristic of the bulk of any nation, because the basic mass of any populace is, sadly, sheeple. What the government fails to realize (or realizes quite well but chooses nonetheless to intentionally keep the people downtrodden as required from them by the sinister globalist forces) is that they need to provide the minimum for the people: panem et circenses plus a little respect for their dignity and appreciation for the enormous hardships and deprivations they have gone through in their ancient and most recent history.
Thank you Mr. Sassounian for adopting a balanced attitude. I had read so many negative reports about Armenia that I was turned-off and had decided never to go there. It is when I was in a near-death accident that I decided to go there and see for myself, the reality as you describe it. It is unfortunate that the negative gets much more air than the positive, especially as Harutik said, from our own people, many of whom are Armenian citizens who have claimed “refugee status” and feel they really have to make it look terrible so that their application is not rejected.
As I have been living there for the last 13 years, I can testify that we have a wonderful country, where I enjoy living and helping. I hope the continuing negative talk does not turn-off more diasporans from living in Armenia and enjoying our Hayreniq as I do.
Bravo Antoine. Every year I spend a considerable potion of time in Armenia. I have property in Armenia. I have close friends in Armenia. I have seen/experienced the bets and the worst about the country. And I cry every time I have to leave. I know I will move here permanently in the near future. Armenia is a work in progress. A country systematically destroyed for the past one thousand years cannot magically turn into Switzerland overnight despite our best wishes. Armenia will go through severe – yet natural – growing pains as it develops and enters into the modern world. We, as children of Armenia, have to be loving, objective, constructive and more importantly – patient.
In a nutshell: What Armenia needs is sociopolitical evolution with the help of its sons and daughters and not a Western instigated revolution.
What bothers me deeply is our people’s self-righteousness, politically illiteracy, narrow world view and constant pessimism/negativity. As you said, many do this to justify their reason to leave their economically stagnant homeland (i.e. native Armenians) and others do this to justify not repatriating or having much to do with their ancestral homeland (i.e. Diasporan Armenians). I suspect many do this subconsciously. Nevertheless, the situation created by the aforementioned two types of Armenians – coupled by an active Western agenda to sow despair inside Armenian society – is poisoning the air the rest of us Armenians breath. You are a good example of our collective problem: It is sad that it had to take a near death experience for you to visit your homeland. I am not criticizing you. I am blaming the Western-financed information war that has victimized so many of our people. In fact, we can see many of those clueless victims right here in Armenian Weekly.
“A country systematically destroyed for the past one thousand years cannot magically turn into Switzerland overnight despite our best wishes. Armenia will go through severe – yet natural – growing pains as it develops and enters into the modern world. ”
It’s not the expectation of paradise overnight, but the consistent and visible effort being put into improving Armenia. People in Armenia are not seeing an effort put into improvement into corruption and other areas which affect their daily lives. When you see effort being put in, it’s easier to be patient.
“coupled by an active Western agenda to sow despair inside Armenian society”
Armenians living in Armenia don’t need the West telling them of problems in Armenia. They feel the impact in their daily lives.
While I understand the points posters ‘Avery’ and ‘Harutik’ are making, I have to agree with poster ‘Random’ in that people in Armenia are not seeing a public-spirited effort on the part of their government to improve the situation in the areas of corruption, lawlessness, nepotism, lack of work opportunities, social inequality, etc. These are, no doubt, natural growing pains that any newly independent nation state endures, especially the landlocked and constantly threatened one like Armenia, but people have only one life to live. Besides, they feel that nothing changes when they rise up against the existing order (1997, 2008, 2015, etc.). While there is certainly Western agenda to sow despair inside Armenian society, I’d agree that on the issue of Armenia’s societal ills the West doesn’t have much dirty work to do, because people, indeed, feel the impact of those ills in their daily lives. While it is true that the RoA government has its hands full protecting Armenians from the Turkic existential threat, we must also admit that their hands are full not only with this vitally important task. It is hard to convince most local Armenians who see castles, shopping facilities, cafes, restaurants, and luxury cars—many belonging to the government officials, their family members, friends, and oligarchs, that the government is preoccupied only with the task of national security. Let’s call things by their proper names… for our own good.
Harutik,
You just praise those beer belly corrupted MPs and things will get better and better, for your investment in Armenia!
I know you will call me Western SPY, because I am not Putin’s fan club!
{“It’s not the expectation of paradise overnight, but the consistent and visible effort being put into improving Armenia.”}
[15 Years Later: Is it Getting Any Better?]
http://armenianweekly.com/2012/09/18/15-years-later-is-it-getting-any-better/
{There’s a lot to celebrate about Armenia today versus Armenia 15 years ago. A lot to fix, but a lot to celebrate, too.}
Random, what say you to Kristi Rendahl’s assessment ?
And should I remind you how our compatriots [HagopD] and [John] assessed you, or you already know.
“And should I remind you how our compatriots [HagopD] and [John] assessed you, or you already know.”
Yeah and? And I have my own assessment of you. So what’s your point?
You deliberately ignored commenting on Kristi Rendahl’s assessment, because you know it debunks your bogus assertion about things not improving in Armenia.
And that proves the point, again, about your agenda.
I didn’t say things are not improving, but that there are still major issues which are not seeing and improvement. It’s spotty, and yes, it’s still 25 years since the SU collapse, but it could also be better.
Talk to john about the issues he’s seeing in Armenian. He’s made several posts about the problems he feels strongly about.
Seeing problems within Armenia is a concern for all Armenians everywhere and painful to see. Armenians have a right to talk, discuss and voice their discontent about it. That is not the same as digging up dirt on Armenia. One can’t simply stay quiet and hope the problems go away on on their own.
{“Armenians living in Armenia don’t need the West telling them of problems in Armenia. They feel the impact in their daily lives.”}
It is not the West telling them: it is Anti-Armenian, Anti-Christian SorosaMaidan disinformation and propaganda channels poisoning the people’s minds 24×7, while operating under the cloak of Armenian names in Armenia, for example.
It works: proof is right here in US.
Anywhere from 40%-70% of Americans thought or think that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, even after being told by Bush himself, after the fact, that there was no connection.
The reason that is so is because for months American public was brainwashed 24×7 into thinking just that by MSM: bombarded daily with half-truths, innuendo, vague accusations,….
It works.
Information is filtered and channeled to achieve specific results.
I read most of the *.am news sites regularly.
The difference in coverage of neutral sites vs those who have an agenda is striking.
You want to see chaos in Armenia, therefore your attitude of “Nothing to see here, move along”, so that those who aim to cause harm to Armenia can operate unhindered out of the limelight.
But when it comes to digging up dirt on Armenia, you are very diligent.
What business does a news site owned by someone like Open Society NGO (Soros) have operating in Armenia and disseminating “news” (lies, misinformation, disinformation, propaganda,…). Go read my above post again about Soros admitting having a hand in Maidan.
Here you go: this just in.
[The CIA and the Media: 50 Facts the World Needs to Know]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-cia-and-the-media-50-facts-the-world-needs-to-know/5471956
{Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis. CIA publicists and journalists alike will assert they have few, if any, relationships, yet the seldom acknowledged history of their intimate collaboration indicates a far different story–indeed, one that media historians are reluctant to examine.} (by Prof. James F. Tracy)
Sure, the CIA have their dirty hands all over the globe. But the corruption in Armenia is not caused by the CIA, but an internally created problem which is hindering Armenia. Armenia could make even better progress when the existing laws on corruption are enforced more consistently.
And things in Armenia will not change by staying quiet about it. When people complain or simply discuss the major issues in Armenia, they do it because they want a better Armenia. This is not about digging up dirt and tarnishing Armenia, but to legitimately criticize the authorities and express what they want Armenia to be. You are way to sensitive to deal with this.
I have been to Armenia and heard Armenians speak. I have seen the changes in Yerevan and elsewhere. But they have concerns with the issues happening in Armenia and they want better action from the government and they’re not seeing enough of it. And why should they see it? A lot of the corrupt people are actually sitting in the parliament.
And the thing is, so many countries have dealt with the issues Armenia is going through. There is experience out there for Armenia to learn and draw from. And I’m sure many countries are happy to share their experiences.
John, the Armenia of today is an accurate reflection of the post-Soviet Armenian. The government in Armenia today is an accurate reflection of the general quality/caliber of people in Armenia today. In my opinion, putting aside some of the negative aspects of communism such as institutionalized atheism, Armenia lived a mini golden period during Soviet times. The Soviet Union gave birth to Mikoyans, Baghramyans, Babajanyans, Khachaturyans, Hambartsumyans, Alikhanyans, Saryans, Khanjyans, etc. Todays’s Armenia is giving birth to Dodi Gagos, Nemets Rubos, Lfik Samos, Arthur Sakunts and Levon Petrosians. They way and the speed with which the Soviet Union collapsed severely damaged Armenian society. The best in Armenian society fled the hardships of the collapse – or died on the battle fields of Artsakh. Those who remained behind were basically the pathetic and the scoundrels. Most of the things we all complain about Armenia today is a direct result of the 1990s and the “capitalism” that Armenians embraced enthusiastically. With that said, Armenia is traveling on a bumpy road that other “developed” nations have already traveled upon. Read Charles Dickens if you want to know how “Imperial London” was like just over a century ago. Do a little research on what the US looked like prior to the Second World War. Let me remind you that Americans and Brits at the time also had one life to live. Your comment about having one life to live is a selfish, narrow statement in my opinion. I think we need to look at Armenia in a wider context and not be sucked into petty nonsense. Concentrating on the bad things that go on in the country is what Western propagandist want us to do. We need to look at Armenia as a living, growing organism in a very bad environment. I have nothing against criticism – as long as it is done constructively, rationally and with political foresight. More importantly, we need to realize that 25 years is merely a blink of an eye in history. Armenia has a very long, hard road ahead. With a neighborhood like the south Caucasus, it could not be any other way. With the kind of traits we have as a people, it could not be any other way. With that said, Armenia is traveling in the right direction. Albeit slow, Armenia is improving. Don’t worry, Armenia won’t depopulate. In the meanwhile, we simply need to be constructive, politically literate and patient.
“With that said, Armenia is traveling on a bumpy road that other “developed” nations have already traveled upon.”
Yes. There is a world of experience out there around the world about what works and what doesn’t when it comes to improving a country. Countries come in all shapes and sizes and issues. It would be smart of Armenia to look and learn from the lessons that are out there.
That soviet era mini golden age was a deal with the devil. No one wants to live through a soviet system again. But, Armenia benefited with being part of a much larger system which protected what’s left of historic Armenia and allowed enough of a nation to be built there to stand on its own when the Soviet Union collapsed. Armenia gave up freedoms and independence to the SU in order to exist.
“Concentrating on the bad things that go on in the country is what Western propagandist want us to do.”
Criticism of the authorities and about progress not being made in Armenia is an important part of Armenia’s road to a better nation. Criticism focuses on issues and spurs changes. Criticism of the bad things is about voicing desire for change and pressure on the authorities when they can do better, but are not. This is not the same as trying undermine or hurt Armenia as some suggest.
Armenians living in Armenia who are impacted by issues and mismanagement by the authorities (and let’s not deny it, it is happening) have a fundamental right to voice criticism. It is a balancing force and a tool that citizens must have. This is something that was not allowed under the Soviet system.
I’d venture into saying that after the first golden age in the fifth century A.D., and then the second golden age in the ninth and tenth centuries A.D., Armenia’s Soviet period can perhaps be qualified as the third golden age of Armenian history.
I know that London was a swamp in the broader sense of the word, and not so long ago. I know this not only from Dickens’ books which I read in the middle school, but from serious scholarly accounts as well.
“25 years is merely a blink of an eye in history” and all that—you don’t really need to tell me this. This I know professionally.
I regret that my comment about having one life to live looked like a selfish narrow statement to you. In reality, it was intended to defend the people who you think are “self-righteous, politically illiterate, narrow world view-holding and constantly pessimistic”. What I attempted to do is not “concentrate on the bad things that go on in the country”, but to defend the people’s choice. It was noted that you said that what bothered you most was “our people’s self-righteousness, politically illiteracy, narrow world view and constant pessimism/negativity.“ Here, too, you say that “with the kind of traits we have as a people, [the hard road ahead] could not be any other way”. Since the peculiar national traits of our people bother you most, I fear you try to put the blame on the people only. Hence, my defense of them in that they flee because they only have one life to live and because several attempts they have undertaken to change unpopular ruling regimes produced nothing but police brutality, arrests, and killings.
Again, the traits that bother you deeply are not typically Armenian. They are universal.
Let me, in turn, tell you what bothers me deeply.
First, it bothers me when the blame for the present state of affairs is being put on our people’s “national” traits. There is no doubt in everyone’s mind that every nation has its peculiar traits. Pardon my banality, but by virtue of their nature never can Armenians become as murderous as Turks and Azeris or as punctual and disciplined as Germans. But the same people (I mean, a nation in its entirety) who possessed the same traits lived during the Soviet period, which you rightly characterized as a “mini golden period”. How is it possible, then, that the same people with the same traits enjoyed a high standard of living in one period of their history, but were made to delve in garbage cans in another? Are their national traits to blame? I don’t think so. I think it is the overall competence of their government that has made such a drastic, and dramatic, difference.
Second, it bothers me when it is said that “the government in Armenia today is an accurate reflection of the general quality/caliber of people in Armenia today”. The government in Armenia today (or anytime after 1991) cannot be an accurate reflection of the people, because the people’s votes throughout the post-independence period were—to a greater or lesser extent—rigged. Meaning, people’s choice for an MP or a presidential candidate was either inaccurately reflected by means of vote-rigging or vote-buying.
We can argue till we faint as to which candidate—and the government he would form—would be better or worse for Armenia. But one thing is clear: let THE PEOPLE decide through free and fair elections as to what government they like to see run the country. If the poeple make a mistake in choosing their leader and his government, again, let THE PEOPLE correct their own mistake through the same free and fair elections.
Add to this all the societal ills, flaws, mismanagement, misconducts, and crimes that the government covers up, and you will see that the comment about having one life to live is not a selfish, narrow statement.
What most ordinary people care is their sustainability, and not political literacy.
It’s so human.
Not typically Armenian.
{Criticism of the authorities and about progress not being made in Armenia is an important part of Armenia’s road to a better nation. Criticism focuses on issues and spurs changes. Criticism of the bad things is about voicing desire for change and pressure on the authorities when they can do better, but are not. This is not the same as trying undermine or hurt Armenia as some suggest.}
I second this.
“That soviet era mini golden age was a deal with the devil.“
The Ottoman era was a deal with the devil. The Soviet era was a least-evil solution. The Soviets didn’t—by and large—treat us as third-class citizens while alternately mass murdering us or forcibly deporting us to the deserts. They allowed us to bourgeon within the confines of their system, however imperfect it was (yet, still, is there such a thing as ‘perfect’ system?).
John, when we Armenians don’t look at the Armenia we have today objectively, rationally and within the context of regional politics and history, we ARE being selfish and narrow minded. The Armenian state is much larger than the whims of the Armenian. Great nations long ago discovered that its the people that needs to serve the state and not the other way around. We are where we are today due to our arrogance, pride and self-righteousness. We are where we are today because our stomachs and our pockets are more important than our state. Finally, I hope to never see a destructive notion like “democracy” taking root in Armenia. It’s profoundly sad that intelligent individuals like you don’t seem to understand that the making of political mistakes by a vulnerable nation like Armenia can prove suicidal for the nation. Speaking of the masses that are expected to elect their leaders: We saw what tens-of-thousands of Armenians did back in early 2008. We don’t need a replay of that ever again. Once more: Armenia cannot afford making the mistakes made by Ukrainians, Georgians, Serbians, Libyans or Syrians.
“I second this.”
So it’s possible for us to agree on some things :)
I could have written that paragraph more eloquently. Basically criticism and even protests against elected officials, oligarchs and the current state of things in Armenia is about wanting something better for the nation. Things which are achievable but no progress has been made and not enough effort put in into it by the authorities.
There are countries where corruption is under better control and lower, and those countries benefit from it economically and socially. Lower corruption in Armenia (an internally created problem) is not at odds with the current Armenian security needs (externally created problem). In fact lower corruption, and enforcement of the laws makes Armenia internally stronger and better able to support her security needs. They go hand in hand.
I think some people see the corruption issue as something to be dealt later or a distraction from the current security and existential threats Armenia is facing. I believe it’s the opposite.
{When we Armenians don’t look at the Armenia we have today objectively, rationally and within the context of regional politics and history, we ARE being selfish and narrow minded.}
No doubt. But looking at Armenia we have today objectively, rationally and within the context of regional politics and history doesn’t presuppose that a deathly silence must be kept in criticism of the authorities in the cases when they could—but failed to—contribute to making their country a better-governed place. And, mind you, many of their failures are not linked to Western subversive activities, which, I admit, exist.
{Great nations long ago discovered that it’s the people that need to serve the state and not the other way around.}
Okay. But you forgot to add ‘developed’ or ’satiated’ in between ‘great’ and ‘nations’. And what does the state does to its people in return? Especially an underdeveloped state? Constantly hikes cast-of-living prices, builds castle for a few and slums for the rest, business monopolies for a few and poverty for the rest, impunity for a few and police brutality for the rest? What?
{We are where we are today due to our arrogance, pride and self-righteousness. We are where we are today because our stomachs and our pockets are more important than our state.}
I fundamentally disagree. It’s, likewise, profoundly sad that intelligent individuals like you can descent to such a narrow minded statement. In what society people’s stomachs and pockets are not—generally—more important than the state? Can you imagine what will happen in one of your ‘great nations’ if their citizens endure empty grocery shelves, darkness and lack of heat? When Armenia and Artsakh were at war in the early 1990s, half starved people, in darkness for almost 24/7, in the miserable conditions of heat- and running water loss, were struggling to keep their children alive, because they understood that security of the state was in jeopardy. They forgot all the arrogance and pride. Their very survival was at stake.
{Speaking of the masses that are expected to elect their leaders: We saw what tens-of-thousands of Armenians did back in early 2008.}
Back in early 2008, tens of thousands of Armenians’ uprising was not so much directed at re-electing LTP, as against voting irregularities and against the reproduction of the RK/SS duo. Yes, we also saw how ‘peacefully’ the state responded to its citizens’ peaceful civil act.
{Once more: Armenia cannot afford making the mistakes made by Ukrainians, Georgians, Serbians, Libyans or Syrians.}
Once more: make an honest attempt at improving the governing and electoral system, and Armenia won’t.
{So it’s possible for us to agree on some things.}
I’m only trying to be objective. While doing so, I realize I’m only a fallible human being. This doesn’t change my opinion about some of your posts in other threads and your possible motives on these pages.
First, this sentence alone undermines the credibility of the author:
“we should acknowledge that the authorities must be doing something right for Armenia to outrank in the Human Freedom Index such influential countries as Argentina, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Kuwait, Mexico, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Ukraine, and Venezuela.”
Really? Claiming that Armenia is doing so well in freedom rankings because it is better than China, Egypt, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Venezuela is quite amusing. These are authoritarian or at best semi-authoritarian countries. Being compared to them is not a point of pride for Armenia. Why would the author do this? We know he is on certain projects with RoA’s government. Has that compromised his objectivity? Quite disappointing.
Another point: even assuming RoA’s problem is bad PR, that alone shows lack of democracy in Armenia. If Armenia’ authorities don’t care enough for the opinion of their voters to showcase their “achievements,” it means that they are not concerned that they will be voted out for doing such a bad job because, well, the people do not have the power to vote them out.
Now, taking a closer look at the index (i.e. separating the economic freedom from personal freedom), it becomes clear that Armenia is not doing so well. Here is personal freedom:
Ukraine: 55
Mongolia: 59
Ghana: 60
Armenia: 70
Turkey: 71
So, Armenia is pretty much tied with Erdoghan’s Turkey and doing worse than Mongolia and Ghana. Not something to be proud of.
The only reason Armenia’s overall ranking is not lower is due to the economic freedom ranking. However, economic freedom does not mean the country is free. Authoritarian countries like the United Arab Emirates (ranking: 6) and Qatar (ranking: 15) are higher in economic freedom than Armenia (20). Economic freedom can be higher if, say, corporations are given freedom to ravage the environment, and the people are too powerless to do anything about it, as is the case with Armenia. [1]
So, no, this is not good news, and efforts to portray it as such do not reflect well on those who try it.
Footnotes:
[1] “unchecked mining is polluting water sources and making parts of this mountainous country uninhabitable”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-atamian/mining-in-armenia-new-ind_b_5941766.html
Beautiful Armenia.
[They attend school for the first time]
http://www.panorama.am/en/all-photos/787/#ad-image-0
What Armenia needs is a socialistic system based on nationalistic principles. Armenian cultural traits (i.e. business smart, competitive, shrewd, aggressive, materialistic, ostentatious, arrogant, clannish, etc) and Western style Capitalism (individualistic, monopolistic, exploitative, elite based, profit oriented, growth oriented, etc) is a formula for disaster for Armenia. Armenians need to wake up and realize that Armenia has been suffering from twenty-five years of Capitalism. The destruction brought upon Armenia by the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union will be felt for generations to come. In the meanwhile, however, as long as those waiting on the political sidelines in Yerevan for the overthrow of the Armenian government continue serving Western/Turkish interests, we will continue tolerating our oligarchs as the lesser evil.
{What Armenia needs is a socialistic system based on nationalistic principles.}
I second this opinion of yours. The Nordic model (or its slightly nationalist-tilting variation) might be one such system.
Back to the USSR. This time we’ll get it right!
A socialistic system doesn’t necessarily mean a Soviet or Soviet 2.0 system. Scandinavian countries, Canada, Austria, et al–all have heavy socialistic elements in their respective systems. Western style capitalism is disastrous for Armenia and in that I fully agree with Harutik.
john,
I was being sarcastic, specially since I’m not sure what exactly he means by a nationalistic based socialistic system. But in first reading my thoughts did jump to something close to the SU.
“A socialistic system doesn’t necessarily mean a Soviet or Soviet 2.0 system. Scandinavian countries, Canada, Austria, et al–all have heavy socialistic elements in their respective systems. Western style capitalism is disastrous for Armenia and in that I fully agree with Harutik.”
So which country is an example of a western style capitalistic system? I’m guessing you mean the US. But Canada is not that far off from the US. Canada is a very successful capitalist country.
I think we really need to define things first because “Western style capitalism” is a broad definition with different meaning to different people. Note that the countries you mention are growth and capitalistically driven country with privately owned enterprises. But with different levels of social and worker protections and services offered by the government. Also, the taxes are higher in order to offer those services.
For me Canada would still fall under “Western style capitalism”. But for you and Harutik and others, it carries the worst connotations since “West” seems to be a tainted word for you guys. Did I understand you correctly?
And what would a nationalistic variation involve?
What would a “a socialistic system based on nationalistic principles.” look like?
Note that I actually myself like a lot of the way Scandanavian and Canadian governments do things. They have humanistic principles guiding their policies such as when it comes to health care.
john,
just to be clear, my comment was directed towards Harutik. And I’m writing this after reading his comment:
“Finally, I hope to never see a destructive notion like “democracy” taking root in Armenia.”
So maybe my tongue-in-cheek USSR comment may not be that far off.
I fully agree that ‘democracy’ has become a destructive notion in recent history, for this form of government is controlled at the top by a small ruling oligarchy. While the people in a democracy are conditioned to believe that they are indeed the decision-making power in the government, in truth there is almost always a small circle of kleptocrats at the top making the decisions for the entirety.
Harutik may wish to elaborate on what he actually meant by “a socialistic system based on nationalistic principles”.
As I understand it, it may be a variation of the Nordic Model (a system of competitive capitalism combined with a large public sector, also known as a combination of a free market economy with a welfare state) based on a nationalistic ideology (i.e. an ideology related to devotion to the historical and political interests and culture of Armenia).
Countries that serve as examples of a western style capitalistic system are, to me, the US and the UK. Their version of capitalism is the cruelest form of the capitalist economic system and with time is becoming more and more unsustainable. In these societies, growing inequality and the failure of the middle class to see gains from economic growth suggest that western style capitalism is working only for the richest. The growth of the American capitalist economy hasn’t translated into higher living standards for most Americans.
Although Canada is a successful capitalist country, she is far off from the US in that the Canadian system essentially falls under “welfare-state socialism” and not distinctively under “western style capitalism”. In Canada people get free health care and subsidized child care. Education in Canada is for the most part provided publicly, funded by federal and provincial governments. If Canadians lose their jobs, they get far more generous and lengthier unemployment benefits than the Americans. Canadians get at least three weeks paid vacation, along with paid sick leave and paid parental leave—benefits that are nearly absent in the US.
john,
Thanks for the clarification on what how you define “western style capitalism”.
I do like how things are done in Canada. In the US, the level of individualism, self-reliance, risk taking and other attributes that stand out very clearly in the US has made it a very successful country in many areas. But it also hurts the country in some very stupid ways. Healthcare and maternity leave for example are obvious areas where the US acts in a very brain-dead manner where the long-term benefit is greater than the short-term cost. But the American way of thinking puts on blinders and people just don’t see.
“I fully agree that ‘democracy’ has become a destructive notion in recent history, for this form of government is controlled at the top by a small ruling oligarchy.”
But which form of government isn’t? Canada and the Scandanvian countries you mention are democracies as well, no? Even in democracies people of influence and money get their way. But anything less than a democracy, where people can voice themselves and vote, will produce an even worse form of government and rule.
In a modern democracy where you can vote, and speak freely and protest, these are tools for you to use. And you have to use them or you will loose them. Democracy requires the constant participation of all citizens.
{- Democracy has become a destructive notion, for this form of government is controlled at the top by a small ruling oligarchy.
– But which form of government isn’t?}
The republican form of government.
In a republic, the power rests in the constitution and laws, wherein the powers of the government are limited so that the people—not a small group of ruling oligarchs and sinister secret societies behind them—retain the maximum amount of power themselves. In a republic, in addition to limiting the power of the government, care is also taken to limit the power of the people to restrict the rights of both the majority and the minority. In a republic, the government recognizes that man has certain inalienable rights and that government is created to protect those rights, even from the acts of a majority.
One example of the truths of this assertion is reported in the Bible. The republic, in the form of the Roman government, as we know, “washed its hands of the matter” after finding accused Jesus innocent of all charges. The republic then turned Jesus over to democracy, which later crucified Him.
It is easy, therefore, to see how a democracy can turn into anarchy when unscrupulous group of individuals wish to manipulate it. The popular beliefs of the majority can be turned into a position of committing injustice against an individual or a group of individuals. This then becomes the excuse for the unscrupulous few to grab total power in an effort to “remedy the situation”. Alexander Hamilton was aware of this tendency of a democratic form of government to be torn apart by itself, when he wrote: “We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in modern governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into […] some form of dictatorship.”
Unfortunately, the republican government, despite the grand efforts of the Founding Fathers, was never built in the United States of America and the American people have to endure oligarchy, i.e. rule by a few men, conveniently camouflaged from the enquiring gaze as ‘democracy’, i.e. rule by the majority.
{In a modern democracy […] you can vote, speak freely and protest […]}
Random, do you really buy into this crap?
“{In a modern democracy […] you can vote, speak freely and protest […]}
Random, do you really buy into this crap?”
Yes, and it’s not crap. There will always be a level of resistance and attack on free speech in any country. Freedom of speech by its nature always challenges the belief and dogmas of some segment of society. It’s a dynamic human enterprise where with each generation we discover what is acceptable to say in public.
But the thing is, and this is something that gets lost in discussions on AW, is the level of freedom (and corruption, voting and other problems). In practice, the level of freedom of speech, assembly and protest varies from country to country. The level of freedom of speech in this country is high, not without problems, but I would rate it as high. Russia and Turkey on other the hand have major issues and the level is lower. I believe the freedom of speech and press is higher in Armenia than Russia. Which is very encouraging and I hope it stays that way. For me a high level of freedom of speech is a sign of maturity and strength for a country.
Democracy is always a struggle, even when you get the law on your side. Things can always change for the worse down the road. Hard fought freedoms can be taken away or reduced on a national level by the or by the local police force racially profiling you.
And I’m using the word democracy in the layman’s terms. As short-hand for representative democracy such as a republic. And that’s also a problem when communicating in our discussions because the word democracy is actually a broad term. It’s clear from everyone’s posts here “democracy” has a different meaning from person to person, giving rise to different emotions.
Just to be clear, for me “modern democracy” means the ideals which most Western countries have set for themselves in the form of elected representatives, laws defining people as equal before the law, and liberties and freedoms explicitly protected in their respective constitutions. Essentially republics.
I see the US in a continued struggle towards the ideals it has set for itself and over time it has been more forward than backwards. I believe with all the justified criticism and hate towards the US, there are many countries where the people would love to vote away their dictators and have them under a term limit, as they see happen in the US.
I would say that the levels of freedom of speech and voting in post WWII West is fairly high. And yet still a work on progress. Racism is still a present problem.
If you have thoughts on these, I would like to hear them. Which country would you feel most free living in at this point in time? Aside from Armenia :)
{If you have thoughts on these, I would like to hear them.}
Readily. As long as AW moderators don’t object.
{There will always be a level of resistance and attack on free speech in any country. Freedom of speech by its nature always challenges the belief and dogmas of some segment of society.}
You, therefore, admit that democracy is not panacea from resistance to and attacks on free speech. If it is so, then, syllogistically, democracy essentially is no better—in the sense of guaranteeing this basic human right, which you consider “a sign of maturity and strength for a country”—than other forms of government, such as monarchy, theocracy, anarchy, etc. Imperial Russia under Nicholas II held a remarkably high level of free speech. Yet, Russia was a monarchy.
You state: “In practice, the level of freedom of speech, assembly and protest varies from country to country.” Agreed. With a reservation that this ‘higher level’ doesn’t automatically make a country ‘democratic’ in the real sense of the word. This you admit in your next passage: “Democracy is always a struggle, even when you get the law on your side. Things can always change for the worse down the road. Hard fought freedoms can be taken away or reduced on a national level by the or by the local police force racially profiling you.”
Let’s now turn to that very sense that the word ‘democracy’ implies.
You say you use the word as shorthand for representative democracy, such as a republic. While I’d agree that representative democracy is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials, I’d disagree that representative democracy is all-inclusive shorthand for a republic. One form of government certainly has some elements of the other, but democracy, speaking likewise in the layman’s terms, is the rule by the majority, whereas a republic is the rule by law. Elected officials in a representative democracy represent a group of people, making the representative democracy in the United States even less than democracy, because the president and vice president are not elected directly by the voters, but by the Electoral College — a weird institution of electors who are chosen by popular vote on a state-by-state basis.
John Adams wrote: ”[In a democracy] unbridled passions produce the SAME EFFECTS (capitalization mine), whether in a king, nobility, or a mob. […] It is therefore as necessary to defend an individual against the majority as against the king in monarchy”. In a democracy, therefore, might makes right. In a republic, right makes might. In a democracy, the law restricts the people. In a republic, the law restricts the government. Because of these distinctions, democracy cannot be fully used as shorthand for a republic.
{For me “modern democracy” means the ideals which most Western countries have set for themselves in the form of elected representatives, laws defining people as equal before the law, and liberties and freedoms explicitly protected in their respective constitutions. Essentially republics.}
No, it’s not essentially a republic. Again, “modern democracy”, whatever you mean by it, has some elements of a republic, but it’s not a republic per se. You cannot, as a majority, make your voice forceful enough through your elected representatives in order to influence or change or terminate a great number of national issues, such as wars, invasions, arms race, Federal Reserve, money printing, taxes, space exploration, behind-the-scene sinister unelected secret societies, etc. Suffice it to recall mass social protests against America’s war in Vietnam or the US invasion of Iraq. Did the majority influence their government through their elected representatives? Nope. The US withdrew from Vietnam only after it had become politically expedient for her to do so, and not under the domestic pressure.
{I believe with all the justified criticism and hate towards the US, there are many countries where the people would love to vote away their dictators and have them under a term limit, as they see happen in the US.}
First, justified criticism and hate towards the US comes mostly from the actions by the US herself. Had the US not poked her nose in everything and everywhere around the globe, the country would be much less criticized and much less hated. Second, do you really mean to tell me that in this country unpopular presidents can be voted away by the people? Do you realize how hard it is to gather a two-thirds vote in the House, which is divided roughly in half by Republicans and Democrats, making it near-impossible to oust a president? In 2004, most eligible Americans wished George W. Bush not to get the second term, yet miraculously was re-elected. So much for a term limit. Besides, a term limit may work for the US, but it doesn’t mean it works for other countries. In dynastic continuation other nations see social stability and political continuity.
{Which country would you feel most free living in at this point in time? Aside from Armenia.}
I would, in turn, like to hear what you mean by “free living in”?
“Readily. As long as AW moderators don’t object.”
Why would they object this post of yours? Puzzled why you’d even wonder about this given how much heated arguments people end up with on AW.
“You say you use the word as shorthand for representative democracy, such as a republic. While I’d agree that representative democracy is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials, I’d disagree that representative democracy is all-inclusive shorthand for a republic.”
I’d like to say more on this. The shorthand I’m using is, as far as I understand, what most people in the West use. This is because the Western governments, as imperfect as they are, the most democratic thing we have grown up with. I get the feeling the your definition of democracy is different than the shorthand which is used most often in discourse. That’s going to lead to misunderstanding.
One of the cornerstones of a democracy is the voice of the people. Republics have this at their core through voting.
The thing is, even in the Rupublic you describe, there will be human beings with special powers in government or through the mega-rich, who will abuse their position in society. Corruption and abuse of power will never go away. The best we can do is minimize it through laws and independent courts.
Even in a republic with well laid down laws, human beings will try and subvert it and infringe upon others’ freedom of expression. That’s never going to go away.
Any system, government or otherwise, is as good as the people who are part of it. But some systems are better than others as the people of a country or entity favor it more than others.
The electoral college you mention is definitely a weird setup. It’s like a middle-man between the voters and those who serve in the white house. That said, the electoral college has been remarkably transparent in how the people vote and who gets into the white house. Some electors have not voted in the person they pledged to vote for for president and vice-president, but those seem to be very rare. There is also the case of the winner of the popular vote loosing because of the how the electoral college works. This I believe happend 4 times. So as wierd as it is, it has been for the most part transparent in terms who the people want in the white house and who ends up there. Again, a system is only as good as the people in it.
“Second, do you really mean to tell me that in this country unpopular presidents can be voted away by the people? Do you realize how hard it is to gather a two-thirds vote in the House, which is divided roughly in half by Republicans and Democrats, making it near-impossible to oust a president?”
I was talking about election day, not mid-term ousting of a president. Besides, there is a reason why it’s 2/3. You don’t want to make it too easy to kick the president out. Otherwise Republicans or Democrats will kick the president out with 50% + 1 vote. 2/3 is a wise setup. And it’s also the deal. You vote someone in for 4 years and you get the chance to vote that person in again only 1 more time after that. Bush Sr. did not get a second term because people vote. Besides, there are elections of senators and representatives during a president’s term, and the whole congress – executive branch is set up to balance each other out. There have been many cases, when the president’s opposite party got into a majority in congress. So there are ways to oppose the president without resorting to exreme measures.
As for Vietnam, the unpopularity of it did play a role in ending the war. 58,000 dead American soliders, a war without a definite goal and so on. The events on the ground in Vietnam were definitely a deciding factor of course.
“In 2004, most eligible Americans wished George W. Bush not to get the second term, yet miraculously was re-elected. So much for a term limit.”
Umm, term limit means the maximum number of terms any one person can serve in the white house. And that’s ‘2’. If enough people voted for aBoosh jr. then he gets a second term. But not a 3rd one. Also, unpopularity does not mean people may not vote for that person. Remember, they have two choices. They may not like the new person and may decide to go with the old one anyway.
As for “Imperial Russia under Nicholas II”, I am not familiar with that period to say anything about it. But you mention Nicholas II and not the Russian Empire as a whole. Does this mean fredom of expression was from one reign to the next?
So much to say and discuss. I’ll stop here. But I will say this:
‘Democracy’ today means the general type of government we find in countries in US, Canada, Western Europe. A representative democracy where people vote people into government, where many if not most have freedom of expression, assembly and religion in their constituation, an independent court system where the laws and constitution can be debated and argued peacefully.
I get the feeling you are looking for this perfect form of government where the rule of law will give us a eutopi. But you’re forgetting the human factor.
{Any system, government or otherwise, is only as good as the people in it. But some systems are better than others as the people of a country favor it more than others.}
Following the law of syllogism, virtually any system, government or otherwise, could, then, be as good as the people in it. No need, therefore, to unnecessarily exalt democracy and belittle other forms of government. People in other countries with different system, government or otherwise, may favor it more than democracies. Saudis are pretty happy with their absolute monarchy. Several Asian nations are pretty happy with their constitutional monarchies. Ask older generation of Russians how they feel about their demised homeland, the USSR. Most will tell you they were pretty happy with that people’s republic.
{I get the feeling that your definition of democracy is different than the shorthand which is used most often in discourse. That’s going to lead to misunderstanding.}
I have no ‘definition of democracy’ of my own. There is one—more or less acceptable—definition for everyone: “a system of government by all eligible members of a country, typically through elected representatives”.
{One of the cornerstones of a democracy is the voice of the people. Republics have this at their core through voting.}
They do, among other basic human rights. But republics have something that democracies have been proven to be ineffective at: the rule by law, not by the moody majority.
{Even in the Republic you describe, there will be human beings with special powers in government or through the mega-rich, who will abuse their position in society.}
It’s not the Republic I describe. My description is based on visions—never to materialize—that the founding fathers had for this country. A system by the rule by law would significantly curtail such abuses. The constitution of the United States, as one example, specifically states that “the Congress shall have power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin”. Yet, in ‘democratic’ United States these powers are given to a private institution by the name Federal Reserve. The framework law of this country is, therefore, openly violated. And this is only one of many violations. Can you change this through your elected representatives so that the law be honored? :)
As for electoral college, this institute creates situations in which winners can be elected without receiving a plurality of the nationwide popular vote. Whether this happened 4 times or 44 times or just once, it proves that the voting system for the president and vice-president in this ‘democratic’ country is inherently undemocratic.
{As for Vietnam, the unpopularity of it did play a role in ending the war.}
It did. But the decisive factor was not the voice of the discontented majority of the people in a ‘democratic’ country that was made heard through their elected representatives and on the streets, but a politico-military expediency.
By ‘term limit” in connection to the 2004 re-election of George W. Bush, I meant that despite the majority of eligible voters having voiced their objection (‘Anyone But Bush’ and all that) for him to get the second term, somehow, ‘miraculously’, he’d gotten it.
As for “Imperial Russia under Nicholas II”, I mentioned Imperial Russia as a whole first and only then specified the rule of a particular monarch. Russia, a monarchy then, had a remarkably high level of free speech. This is a historical fact. So you understand it better, the United States under George W. Bush, a ‘democracy’, adopted the notorious “Patriot Act” thus fundamentally curtailing basic human rights of the Americans.
And I’ll stop here. Noted is your failure (oversight?) to explain, for me to hear, what you meant by a country one would feel “most free living in”? Aside from Armenia, of course.
Addendum:
{Besides, there is a reason why it’s 2/3. You don’t want to make it too easy to kick the president out. Otherwise Republicans or Democrats will kick the president out with 50% + 1 vote. 2/3 is a wise setup.}
You bet it’s a ‘wise’ setup. With it, a president elected on the political platform of his party, which makes up about half of the House, technically cannot be ousted by two-thirds, because hardly—and only when confronted with gravest indisputable evidence—would a portion of the other side of the aisle, consisting of the president’s party members, give their ‘yea’ votes for impeachment. Even IF the House gets their two-thirds, the president can be removed only after he or she is convicted in the Senate. This had never happened in the American history. Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate. President Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.
Wise set-up, indeed…
{“ I didn’t say things are not improving,”}
(Random Armenian // September 3, 2015 at 1:25 pm //)
Sure you did:
{“ It’s not the expectation of paradise overnight, but the consistent and visible effort being put into improving Armenia.”}
Consistent and visible effort has been and is being put into improving Armenia.
Ms. Rendahl’s observation proves it.
And her observation debunks your false assertion.
{“ Talk to john about the issues he’s seeing in Armenian. He’s made several posts about the problems he feels strongly about”}
I have read [John]’s posts long enough to be able to tell the difference.
[John] sees _some_ issues in Armenia: I never claimed there are no problems in Armenia.
The difference between you and [John] is that while he sees some problems in Armenia, you see nothing but problems.
And if you don’t see it, you go out of your way to dig up dirt.
And since you and I both respect [John]’s view on various issues, what do you think of this:
{“… that you either have ulterior motives or that you may be random but not necessarily Armenian. If either or both of these suspicions is correct, then, you’re right, it is our problem to confront mind-tilting and hidden agendas on these pages.} (john // August 18, 2015 at 2:47 pm //)
I will await your answer with baited breath.
Please don’t take too long: I am turning blue already.
Thank you.