By Richard K. Ohanian
The question of “change” in Armenian political organizations is rather perplexing. Bringing up the subject to a random member of any such organization created over the last 100 years would be like opening Pandora’s Box. There always seems to be a “chicken or egg” problem when it comes to initiating change in an organization with a long history: Should the change come from the top? Or is it supposed to be initiated from the rank and file? Given the very nature of most Armenian political organizations, which are highly centralized and top-down despite contrary beliefs, one can conclude that change will not happen unless the collective leadership of the given organization decides to jumpstart the process.
But why do we need change? Isn’t the status quo good enough? One can answer that question from various angles; this article is an attempt to make the case for change in Armenian political organizations, especially the ones operating in the diaspora, based on two simple charts.
By the standards of many, the Armenian National Committee of America, aka the ANCA, is perhaps one of the best grassroots advocacy and lobby groups among the various Armenian political organizations. Thus, let’s simply focus on ANCA, to make the case.
Browsing Facebook, one can notice two charts with revealing facts posted on Aram Hamparian’s (the ANCA executive director) Facebook profile—kindly shared with everyone about the ANCA’s website traffic.
Chart #1 illustrates a comparison between the ANCA website’s (www.anca.org) traffic with the website traffic of the Armenian Assembly of America (www.aaainc.org).
In order to do some rough yet interesting statistical analysis, one can:
1) Assume all of the ANCA’s website traffic comes from “Armenians” residing in the United States.
2) Associate each website hit with a unique visitor of anca.org; hence assume 10,000 hits refers to 10,000 distinct visitors of the ANCA website.
3) Ignore the impact of RSS feed on website traffic.
4) Assume there are about 1 million Armenians living in the U.S.
5) Assume a life expectancy of 75 years for Armenians living in the U.S.
6) Assume a uniform distribution of population in 15 age groups, with 5 years of interval.
That puts about 66,000 Armenians in each age group (of 0-5, 5-10, up to 70-75 years of age).
7) Assume the age groups of 0-15 and 65-75 years of age won’t have the capability or the desire to visit anca.org. This excludes roughly 450,000 Armenians, leaving us with approximately 550,000 Armenians who are in an age group potentially capable of using the internet and visiting a website.
8) Let’s assume that out of the 550,000, 20 percent are interested in politics one way or another (1 in every 5 Armenians in the age groups of 15 to 65). Therefore we arrive at a rough figure of 100,000 Armenians who live in the United States, have the means to visit the ANCA’s website if they choose to do so, and are politically aware, savvy, or active.
Now, out of that 100,000, on average, about 7,000-8,000Armenians visit the ANCA’s website on a monthly basis. That comes to be about 7-8 percent of the 100,000 we deduced above. Thus, one can conclude that based on the above calculations, more than 90 percent of the Armenians living in the U.S. who are interested in politics and have the means to go online and visit a “grassroots” political organization’s website choose not to do so on a regular basis.
Another important indicator in the above chart is the 20,000 hits the ANCA website received during April 2009. This is a very important figure as it roughly shows the ANCA’s penetration level within the Armenian American population. This figure indicates that the ANCA, with its current reputation and activity level, is known only to roughly 20 percent of the “politically aware” population of Armenians living in the U.S. The basis for the above conclusion is the following: April 22, 2009 was a turning point for the Armenian Cause (Hai Tahd), as it marked the announcement of the “roadmap” to normalize relations between Armenia and Turkey. It is safe to assume that regardless of someone’s point of view on the issue, a politically and socially aware Armenian American would have visited the ANCA website to gather information regarding the roadmap between the two states, if the ANCA was known to him or her.
Thus, one can conclude the following: After years of grassroots activity, the ANCA, perhaps the most popular Armenian political organization, enjoys merely 7-8 percent popularity among Armenian Americans, and just about 20 percent of the Armenian American population knows about the ANCA and its activities. Put another way, 80 percent of Armenian Americans are oblivious of the ANCA and its activities. That is telling!
In order to gain a greater perspective, one can do a comparative analysis of the ANCA with other ethnic groups involved in foreign policy advocacy. Chart #2 is a comparison of the website traffic of the ANCA and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Comparing AIPAC and the ANCA is not rocket science, as one could easily conclude that AIPAC is a much more popular and stronger organization than ANCA. For starters, one can compare each organization’s yearly budget, or their rate of success with respect to the goals they set, or the power and influence they project in Washington, D.C., and conclude that with more than 50,000 members and a yearly budget of tens of millions of dollars (considering the most conservative figures), AIPAC cannot be compared with the ANCA.
Meanwhile, the traffic AIPAC sees on its website is roughly twice that of the ANCA’s: www.aipac.org gets an average of 15,000 hits per month. Yet, the Jewish population in the U.S. is roughly six to seven times that of the Armenian American population. On a population-adjusted basis, therefore, anca.org sees roughly three to four times more traffic than aipac.org does. This leads to the conclusion that it is not the size of the website traffic that matters, but the characteristics of the demographic that is attracted to each website and the actions that each demographic chooses to take—empowered and motivated by its respective lobby group website.
Perhaps a better figure of merit for comparing the two lobby groups is the amount of money the ANCA receives on a monthly basis from its support base normalized by 8,000 hits (the donation the ANCA receives per website visitor) compared with the money AIPAC receives normalized by 15k (the donation AIPAC receives per website visitor). Unfortunately, the numbers are not available for more rigorous analysis; however, one can again make a safe guess and conclude that AIPAC will leave the ANCA behind by great margins. This means that in comparison with AIPAC, the ANCA has to do a lot more to empower, inspire, and motivate its support base in raising funds and achieving organizational goals.
The question that immediately comes to mind is, perhaps, the most important one: Why, after decades of its existence, is the ANCA only known to so few Armenian Americans? This question brings up the many systemic shortcomings and structural flaws in the modus operandi of most of the Armenian political organizations operating in the diaspora today. Readers are encouraged to analyze the fundamental elements and basic principles of the organizational structures, models, and methodologies practiced in Armenian political organizations and note that the prevailing culture and practiced mode of operations in the majority of these organizations date back to the early 20th century. Core processes—such as information gathering and processing, knowledge and manpower management, resource allocations, strategic planning and thinking, decision-making, public relations, youth and community engagement, recruitments, and training—and many more processes practiced in traditional political organizations are obsolete, ineffective, inefficient, and above all repelling. The average age of their membership—which is alarmingly high—is a measurable indicator of the unpopularity of Armenian political organizations among the youth in the diaspora. Hence, it is not a secret that the modus operandi of Armenian political organizations operating in the diaspora needs fundamental changes. However, why such changes do not occur in the pace they are supposed to occur is the main question that perplexes everyone.
On a tangential note, some readers might consider this analysis to be fatalistic and representing a brand of world-weary cynicism. This trend of labeling those who think “differently” has been consistently popular among the leadership of various Armenian political and social organizations when the latter group is confronted by many who question the status quo. In spite of consistent systemic failures and apparent structural and institutional inefficiencies and ineffectiveness, many “leaders” beat an upbeat drum of optimism about the future, and continue their “business as usual” mode of operations. Unfortunately, this consistent sense of “optimism” has two potential downsides. By refusing to look at our current realities and ignoring the negative consequences of wrong policies set by the machinery of each organization, these organizations can delude themselves about the ineffectiveness of their policies and the inefficiencies of their processes. This trend simply creates a culture that rewards lack of accountability for systemic failures. Focusing on the measurable results such organizations achieved during the last decades, one can easily conclude that most of them are failing both in the diaspora and in Armenia.
A second downside to false positive-thinking is the potentially cruel burden it can impose on the community. For instance, expecting the community to be relentlessly hopeful despite consecutive failures on the part of Armenian political organizations without initiating substantial changes (as opposed to cosmetic changes) only adds to the frustration, isolation, and disengagement of their respective Armenian communities, especially the educated youth. A substantial change could mean imitating the trend adopted in many developed countries, where the leadership of a political party facing a major defeat in national elections simply accepts the consequences of their collective failures and resigns from power or does not seek re-election—to pave the way for a new generation of leaders. Unfortunately, such a healthy process has not been adopted by Armenian political parties and organizations in Armenia or the diaspora.
Hopefully, 2010 will be the year of initiating “change” in the lifespan of Armenian political organizations. And their respective leaderships will be able to envision and jumpstart much-needed change in the core processes of these organizations.
Guest Contributor
An incredibly fascinating read. Thank you. We have made some inroads as a community but have much work still to do. We need to take on a “No community member left behind” approach.
Wow, great analysis Mr. Ohanian. A few things, if I may:
1) The ANCA is not a completely independent organization in the way AIPAC is. It is the political wing of the ARF. Thus, as I’ve discussed in length before, even though the vast majority of the community agrees with the ANCA’s position on almost every Armenian issue, it does not identify with the ARF, and therefore, not with the ANCA. As you know, the Armenian American community has a long history of division, and those divisions have cemented over the years. This has become quite unhealthy for the organizations themselves because each generation essentially reproduces the power base of their respective “camp.” They stopped competing with each other a long time ago, and have thus been allowed to excuse themselves when need be.
2) The AAA functions with the support of about 10 very wealthy individuals (out of which only a few care enough to make decisions and be involved). That is why the AAA can afford to be wrong on almost every issue but still remain as the more powerful, more wealthy lobby group. They also had a head start on the Dashnak community (see Vahan Cardashian vs. everybody else, in early 20th century). I’m not saying the ANCA is any different (I don’t know enough to say so), but it is clear that they are more inline with the community at large, and their activism has a huge popular grassroots following (compared to the AAA, I mean).
3) These organizations have been unable to consolidate or attract any sizable amount of the immigrants from Armenia. “Hayastantsis” make up about 30% of the Armenian American community (the largest plurality perhaps) yet are the least politically active. Of course, each first generation is a-political, more concerned with acquiring wealth and establishing themselves before getting involved in the community, and people from communists countries in general have yet to fully grasp the concept of activism, but by in large, those who do have opinions and are involved see these two organizations as misguided and leading us in the wrong direction. Their inclusion into the Armenian American political landscape would mean some drastic changes in perspective and policy. Both of these organizations (with a few exceptions) have shied away from this portion of our community — that is not how they have responded to the other waves of immigrants from the Middle East, etc..
4) Some of these things are changing, but a “fundamental” reform in the system would require a fundamental change in the Prelacy/Diocese system, and some other form of decision making that isn’t controlled by the wealthy few who might put their business interests in Armenia ahead of our nation’s interests (khntrem, AAA and board members vis-a-vis Protocols).
The truth is both the ANCA and the AAA have made big mistakes in shepherding our political aspirations and have shielded themselves from criticism by saying “shh we’re doing important work: genocide recognition!” It is under their leadership, and their sympathetic counterparts in Armenia, that has lead us to this moment of crisis for our nation.
Despite their exaggerated and perceived differences, they have both never supported democracy in Armenia, they have never supported the will of the people in Armenia (not in 1988, not in 2003, and not in 2008), and have used (and antagonized) the Diaspora’s mistrust of Armenia to garner support and enthusiasm and cover up their mistakes.
Did you guys see the latest numbers from the All-Armenia Fund? The Armenian American community gave LESS than Armenia did — for the first time. A poor, landlocked, blockaded country, with huge unemployment numbers and about 30% of the population living in poverty, donated MORE than our entiiire community combined. And yet, neither of these organizations have done any soul searching, neither have offered us any real reason as to why all of these things are happening, and neither have addressed their past sins (the perquisite to any organization or person who wants to signal a change in direction and attitude).
“A substantial change could mean imitating the trend adopted in many developed countries, where the leadership of a political party facing a major defeat in national elections simply accepts the consequences of their collective failures and resigns from power or does not seek re-election—to pave the way for a new generation of leaders. Unfortunately, such a healthy process has not been adopted by Armenian political parties and organizations in Armenia or the diaspora.”
I wanted to echo this statement. The community needs to realize that these organizations have CONTRIBUTED to the problems (Armenia’s democratic standing, Protocols, schism between Diaspora/Armenia). And before people start chanting “Sergik heratsir” — they have to see whether or not there’s anybody within their own organization — even as a symbolic gesture — needs to “herana.”
And lastly, your last sentence is not true. I’m quite sure ONE president of Armenia did resign, and kept his mouth shut for 10 years while his legacy and memory was destroyed. Do you see anybody at the ANCA, AAA, or Armenia’s current government, resigning? Can we even IMAGINE such a scenario?
In comparing ANCA & AIPAC, a lot of the numbers mentioned are assumed as pointed out. One important factor to consider though is the % of the Armenians and Jews that are in the US and the reason & when they have arrived in this country. Most of the Armenians have left their country being fed up with the conditions of their homeland or are refugees & are more interested in making a living and can not help financially any political cause, even if they are interested in. The US Jewish community does not have this problem and they are very well established, can afford to help their political views with their financial support which translates into power to see that the organizations that they support act in a manner that they want.
Bottom line, when Armenians start to donate the sizable amounts required to influence political organizations is when one can see the change that everyone is looking for.
Which political group was founded by Ottoman Armenians? And why has it been discarded?
While the effort is commendable and offers some interesting insights, it is based on too many unknowns or assumptions: if 550,000 Armenians usually surf the Web, if a 20 percent of them is politically active is of critical importance. Inaccuracy in this regard calls into question the result: these unknowns are fundamental.
Without coming to the defense of organizations that indeed are resistant to change and mostly opaque to the outside world in the way they operate, the above analysis presupposes that they are actually doing something wrong, hence, if we follow this logic, the lack of participation. What if they are doing everything right but the demographics –in the broadest sense of the world: attitudes, education, world views, communication patterns among the youngest, political apathy, etc– are changing faster than organizations can adjust. Some would even question the need for political parties in the Diaspora. Armenia is independent. Go there and run there for power. Here we need to organize communities and keep them alive, along with their clubs, schools, etc.
We are talking about the fourth generation after the Genocide and the asssimilation process is ruthlessly at work. Not even Armenians in leadership positions agree on what it means to be Armenian anymore. There is some talk in the States, among teachers of Armenian of all people, that Western Armenian is irredeemably doomed and why bother to keep it alive, since the Armenian is now “spiritual”, whatever that means (whatever it is, every time I have asked I have failed to get a convincing answer, something acknowledged by those who propose it as well.) To some it means –no joking– “cooking according to grandma’s lahmejun recipes,” to others it means liking Armenian parties (the fun ones, no the political ones), Turkey-bashing and that only unfortunately, which is something to be expected: since the most solid and rich connection to the Armenian identity is –after the family– the language, the church and the culture and most of these people lack a connection to the latter three, unable to read Armenian literature or know what Armenia is about, they can express their Armenianness only in the most primal way: shouting slogans, revering the colors of the flag, saying that Armenians are the best people in the world, and such things you find among soccer fans, who basically root for a team because of a color and that only.
I wouldn’t compare ANCA to AIPAC on website traffic. ANCA is more of a grassroots organization that’s very active in community activism, whereas AIPAC, very closely involved in the lobbying activity, is more concerned with pressing the White House and Congress for the Israeli interests (rather than more broadly Jewish, from what I know).
I’m not sure people do not know about ANCA or its website. They can surely find it if they want to. Most Armenians know where our churches are. Nobody goes. The problem is deeper. As for change, yes, political parties should democratize urgently –even though I fear it’s too little, too late–, and try to have broader appeal. Yet there is so much they can do. Even though the differences are substantial, it amounts to those who call for “changes” in the Armenian Church. Well, it can only change so much. No matter what one thinks about it, a church is a church, not a TV program fighting for rating, so those calling for changes will not be happy even with that, because they really don’t care about what a church is.
The same with politics. By nature, politics are divisive: one takes sides, and in the end that’s what counts. Why would you otherwise join a political party if it doesn’t matter? Many Armenians of the newer generations would be reluctant to join a party or take sides, or even get involved in the kind of necessary activisim that ANCA carries out. Probably they just do not care, not because it’s ANCA’s fault but because they are simply not concerned with what ANCA does, no matter how well it does it, as it does indeed.
I mean no offense, guys, but haven’t ANCA or AAA, or possibly any other Armenian American organization, been created and are largely controlled by the US government? What’s the need for this article and comparisons contained in it, when many Armenian Americans know that neither ANCA nor AAA, while playing ‘ethnic’ on the outside, are essentially American organizations on the inside? Maybe that’s the major reason why 80% of Armenian Americans are not involved in or affiliated with them?
ANCA and AAA websites do not usually have much of interest on a day to day basis. Therefore, they seem to me to be a rather poor guage of Armenian American political interest and activism (though, admittedly, we don’t have enough of either).
Better to see how many hits the Armenian American media get (quite a bit, especially lately, I would guess due to papers’ going online) and also Armenian (and Armenian American) news sites, of which there are many. But the author deserves credit for his attempts to quantify things.
One problem, of many, with ANCA is that it is underfunded and understaffed. Increasingly too, if you read the ARF papers, there is some question as to how dedicated it really is to the land and reparations matters. There are signs that the ARF has taken on some of the rhetoric of the “reconciliation” crowd, and with some of the same academicians too.
Has anyone noticed how softline the formerly hardline Armenian American academicians have become? Has anyone besides me noticed that the Society of Armenian Studies (SAS) has been taken over by softliners? Look at the board members. The new generation of academicians thinks that “Turkey has changed.” Maybe they should go live there and write whatever they want and see how much it has changed.
As for the AAA, it has enough money, but little idea of what to do with the money because it lacks fight. There’s no fight there. AAA depresses me.