Part I provided a brief summary of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation’s (ARF) exemplary service to the Armenian people and the interest of the Armenian nation during its first 100 years. Period I: 1890-1923 covered the years from the founding of the ARF to the cataclysmic year of 1923. Period II: 1923-1991 coincided with the catastrophic after effects of the genocide and the existence of the Bolshevik Armenian republic to the founding of the second free Armenian Republic. Part II will assess the role of the ARF during the years following the establishment of the Republic of Armenia in 1991, when its operation moved from the diaspora to the homeland.
Period III: 1991-present
In1991 the second independent Armenian republic was declared. This event should have heralded a new era for the ARF. The party was now able to return to a free Armenia, a day that the leaders in exile had nurtured for the past 70 years. The notable success the ARF had achieved within the diasporan communities was accomplished under circumstances far different than the circumstances the Armenians of the Mayreni Yergir (Motherland) had faced. Each group was a very distinct major subset of Armenians with different emotional and psychological backgrounds responding to the differing socio-economic and political environments within which they had to adapt. Rather than firmly laying the foundation for their effective participation in the political life of Armenia, the party immediately entered the world of post-Soviet Machiavellian politics.
In December 1994, Armenia’s first president, Levon Ter-Petrossian (1991, re-elected 1996), based on specious charges that the ARF had a subversive component, banned the party and its principal publication “Yerkir” from operating in Armenia. While the party had a cachet based on its years operating in the diaspora, Ter-Petrossian may have overestimated the ARF’s ability to become a worrisome opposition to his administration. (The party did, however, win 11 seats in the May 2003 election, making it the fourth largest block in parliament). For the next several years the ARF was unable to function as a political party.
The worsening economic conditions and a conciliatory policy with respect to the Karabagh issue forced Ter-Petrossian to resign in February 1998. His prime minister, Robert Kocharyan, became acting president and a presidential candidate. Kocharyan prevailed in a required run-off election for president. In May 1998, shortly after assuming office, he decreed that the ban imposed on the ARF by Ter-Petrossian had no merit and was no longer in force. This was the ARF’s reward for supporting Kocharyan’s candidacy and then his administration. Several months earlier, for different reasons, the Ministry of Justice had reinstated the ARF based on it having met the legal requirement that does not allow foreign membership in a domestic political party.
In meeting this requirement, the leadership symbolically divorced itself from the Central Committees (Getronagan Gomidehs) that were instrumental in carrying out its policy decisions within the diaspora. In doing this, the Getronagan Gomidehs were granted a greater degree of autonomy. One might question whether this legal requirement had a deleterious effect on the functioning of the leadership that was now somewhat insulated from the diaspora by being headquartered in Yerevan, where it competed with the local political parties and the machinations of their leaders. An unintended consequence of this legal requirement was the bifurcation of a previously monolithic party into a Haiastan (Armenia) ARF and a Diaspora ARF. For both, the agenda remained focused primarily on Hai Tahd—principally genocide recognition—and less on the plight of the Armenian worker and his family. The reconciliation of these diverse objectives has yet to be addressed.
While it is easy in hindsight to say that supporting Kocharyan may have been a mistake, some cautionary flags should have been flying. Why would the ARF support any administration that was not fully committed to its historic social democratic principles? In addition, the ARF leadership understood the insurmountable problems that Armenia faced. The social, economic, political, and judicial systems under which Armenians had lived during the previous 70 years were well known to the ARF leaders. The political implosion of the Soviet Union represented a complete failure of this ill-conceived Bolshevik experiment in socio-economic engineering, which resulted in an immediate and total collapse of Armenia’s economy attended by social and political chaos.
The ARF, having been in Armenia less than seven years before supporting candidate Kocharyan and then his administration, still did not have a credible program in place to address the plight of the worker and his family. And without having developed a significant power base, the party could neither aggressively advocate change nor influence change within any administration it supported. How did the ARF expect to advance its revolutionary message of equality, opportunity, and justice by aligning itself with mundane political parties?
Being a foreign-based anti-Communist political party for the previous 70 years, the ARF leaders were “foreign” as well. The political and economic advantage lay with those men who had occupied positions within the Soviet economic and political system. Was it reasonable to believe that these insiders and apparatchiks would suddenly fade into the background? Or that the leadership of the ARF (supported by local Dashnaks), with their revolutionary credentials still intact, would be genuinely welcomed and the party allowed to compete on a level playing field? Is it being overly critical to say that the values defining the ARF did not define the administrations that the party supported?
Supporting Kocharyan and later President Serge Sarkisian’s ruling Republican Party, the revolutionary message of social justice remained subdued. During this time the ARF failed to articulate an agenda that resonated with the worker and his family. It was only at the eleventh hour that the ARF withdrew its support over the issue of the protocols. It cannot be conclusively proven if the failure for Armenian-Turkish rapprochement was due to the ARF’s public opposition in Armenia and the diaspora; to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s realization that the gambit was not playing out as he had anticipated; or as a result of a more astute response to evolving conditions by Sarkisian. All three may have played a part in derailing the ratification of the protocols by both sides. However, by the time the ARF broke with the administration over the protocols imbroglio, the damage had been done. The ARF could not claim to be blame free from the vexing economic conditions that continued to plague the Armenian worker. Of greater significance, it had failed to advance its historic message as a revolutionary party. It should be noted that the party withdrew its support of the Sarkisian Administration on a foreign policy matter. Were there no serious domestic policy issues that could have warranted a similar response?
Until it can significantly expand its influence with the worker, the ARF will remain a marginal political party. Presently the ARF holds 16 of the 131 seats in parliament. Vahan Hovanisyan, the ARF presidential candidate in the 2008 election, garnered slightly over six percent of the vote cast. If the ARF is to expand its influence, the party must develop a relevant program of legislation energetically and effectively communicated to the Armenian electorate. The voter must not only understand what the ARF-Dashnaktsutiun seeks to achieve, but must also believe that the party can deliver what it proposes.
To say that the electorate is cynical is an understatement. That significant obstacles exist for the ARF is not being denied, but what party carrying a revolutionary message challenging the status quo does not face serious political opposition and voter skepticism? The administration’s failure to adequately address existing problems is not being vigorously attacked by the ARF inside and outside parliament. Domestic concerns, not foreign policy issues, will drive the next round of elections (parliamentary in 2012 and presidential in 2013). It can no longer remain a party solely dependent upon its diasporan constituency. There is now a Haygagan (Armenian) constituency that must be considered. The leadership must realize that continuing to emphasize foreign policy issues (Hai Tahd) not only weakens its revolutionary message of equality, opportunity, and justice, but is detrimental to empowering the ARF as a competitive domestic political party.
No one should question the need to change the existing system in Armenia or the dominant role that the ARF must have in affecting this change. Is it being overly critical to note that the ARF does not appear to have the fervor, the passion, or the focus to rightfully claim to be the revolutionary party of its forebears? The party has failed to mount a vigorous and sustained attack on the oligarchic system that benefits a few and suffocates the present wellbeing of Armenia’s citizens as well as limiting their future potential.
The exodus of men and women from Armenia to find employment in other countries is a social catastrophe. Remittances can never compensate for the failure of government to facilitate economic expansion and job creation. Armenia’s natural and human resources have yet to be fully developed. It is delusional to expect that published increases in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or positive economic growth rates are reliable indicators in an oligarchy that the wellbeing of the worker and his family is improving.
Family formation, declining birth rates, and the out-migration of young people are contributing to an alarming annual decline in the population that is crippling Armenia’s development while creating an ever-increasing older population that must be cared for. These are serious national issues that are being ignored. For some to blame Armenia’s economic problems on the closed border with Turkey (which, frankly, is quite porous) is a “red-herring.”
The founding of the second free and independent Armenian Republic should have ushered in the most productive period in the history of the ARF. The 20th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of Armenia was recently celebrated. Granted its exemplary role with respect to Karabagh, what domestic initiatives during these same 20 years can the ARF celebrate?
The party has allowed itself to be co-opted by a system that is anathema to the principles and the philosophy of the Dashnaktsutiun. Where is the vision that determines the party’s goals for the future? Where is the passion to achieve these goals? And where is the selflessness that places the mission above personal gain? These are the sine qua non attributes of the leadership and those in the ranks of any party with a revolutionary message. Where is the dogged determination to challenge the administration on domestic issues where it is politically vulnerable? Where is the commitment to create a system beneficial to all Armenians irrespective of age, infirmities, talent, or intellect? Where is the Armenian Revolutionary Federation of our fathers?
[Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this article misstated the date of the 2003 election.]
Michael Mensoian
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
A very insightful assessment of the recent period. It is ironic that the ARF had to transition from an indigenous organization to a builder of the diaspora in the early 1920s. It was difficult transition from a geographic,infrastructure and mission perspective. They operated internationally but the core of the organization was the local gomideh driving the establishment and development of what we call our communities today. The ARF essentially reversed that process in the early 1990’s with the exception that they added a presence in Armenia in addition to the diaspora.
The foreign policy issues that motivate the diaspora is of less concern to the citizens of Armenia. It is comparable to how we behave as Americans politically behave…essentially focused on economics and domestic society as a priority. This is difficult for us to understand in the diaspora, but it is more important for political parties to have a strategy on jobs, the economy and the quality of life as compared to foreign policy matters that are more removed from day to day life. How do we feel in our current homes about unemployment, corruption and society? It is consistently a higher priority in voting patterns.
The retention of the population and the talent of Armenia is THE national security issue for our political parties. The ARF must address this in order to be rewarded with more popular support. I have always felt that the ARF was at its best in history as a populist based organization that was more focused on the needs of its constituency….. be that our villagers in the early 20th century, defending the population from the Turkish onslaught during the genocide, the heroic Sadarabad, Karakilise and Bash Abaran, organizing the survivors of the diaspora into a functioning community, defending the rights of our people in Karabagh and advocating for western Armenia.
Today Armenia need that populist ARF to rebuilt the confidence of the people in their society and to reestablish hope. Our grandfathers did this with selfless sacrifice and a subordination of personal goals. Our history is filled with examples of focused commitment overcoming obstacles. The door is open for the next example in today’s Armenia.
Undoubtedly, this is one of the best, most thoughtful and well articulated articles that appeared in the Armenian Weekly. I sincerely hope that the members of the ARF Bureau read it , get the message, and make a sincere effort to act upon it.
With only 16 out of 131 seats in parliament, and 6% of the electorate vote, The ARF cannot achieve any of its goals or objectives for the betterment of the life of Amenians who are living in the Homeland.
In my view, Mr. Mensoian has provided the basic elements of a clear and precise “Platform” on which the ARF can run the Parliamentary elections in 2012. The question is whether we shall have the right candidates to convey the message and do what is right. Without the Platform as described by Mensoian, and capturing a larger block of seats in the parliament, the ARF will not be able to have any influence in Armenia, and its role will be limited to the Diaspora.
Without popular support in Armenia, without the desire and the strong hope that things in Armenia will get better, the ARF’s efforts in the Diaspora will be in vein, unless we find a common cause with the citizens of the Homeland.
Vart Adjemian
“In1991 the second independent Armenian republic was declared.” —We can certainly say ‘second independent Armenian republic’, but equally correct would be to say ‘third Armenian republic’. Although dependent, Soviet Armenia nonetheless was our second republic.
“The political implosion of the Soviet Union represented a complete failure of this ill-conceived Bolshevik experiment in socio-economic engineering, which resulted in an immediate and total collapse of Armenia’s economy attended by social and political chaos.” —Modern scholars agree that the Bolshevik experiment wasn’t the primary reason for the political implosion of the Soviet Union: manipulated external factors, destructive outside forces, and home-bred treacherous individuals caused the collapse of otherwise relatively viable, yet non-competitive, Soviet (including Armenian) economy. One cannot but agree that Armenia’s Soviet period, even though it was an ill-conceived Bolshevik experiment, was one of the brightest in many respects.
A sincerely concerned, but an unsubstantiated article, of the impressionist genre, full of factual errors (E.g. there were no parliamentary elections in May 1993 in Armenia) and with an abundance lack of information on the activities of the ARF-Dashnaktsutyun in Armenia. All this means that it is in desperate need of a response. So… stay tuned.
Dear Mr.Mensoian Your Article , where is the ARF of our fathers ,was proufoundly comprehensive and needed no comments but rather unquestionable apprehension and support ,and it had the effect of looking into one’s own self in the mirror.and therefore it showed all in it’s full length and very clearly ,the shortcomings and miscalculations of the latest generations of leadership, so nothing could be added there except trying to find the answer to your question .
The ARF was founded having as a strategy ,not the liberation of Armenia ,because at that time even the mere thought about it was extremely unlikely and an unrealistic dream. It was founded to give a hand to the poor Armenian population in western Armenia by spreading among them the spirit of revolt against the Turkish and Kurdish oppressors,in plight of equal rights ,because the country was bleeding under the ottoman yoke ,and the Armenian population unable to endure any more were leaving the country by the thousands in search of their daily bread,and a decent life , to foreign countries, and the land was being emptied .It was with remarkable and heroic stories that the fedayeens enriched our recent history with ..And the masses loved and adopted them in their hearts.
That’s why when the ARF was eventually re-founded in YERGIR ,the welcoming cries was heard all over,to the extend that fables and ficticious stories were invented about DASHNAK armies in the diaspora .People were waiting for them .
Now the situation in Armenia is as it is known , and the ARF is there in YERGIR ,with a difference from the ARF of our fathers in its tactics .The ARF instead of bringing with it the ancestoral virtues and moralities ,it fell into the trap knitted by the regime , though innocentely,involuntarily , and in contrast to its approved activity in western Armenia during the last century ,it did not succeed to be convincing to the ordinary people ,in modern Armenia, because it fell into the trap of participating in some of the governments and the people did not trust the authorities whatsoever . To understand the political situation there even better ,we have to state that the ruling elite who came to power after the independence were almost the same elite of the communist era ,who naturally brought with it the corruption and machiavelian intrigues the precedent regime was so famous with . The system itself was based on tempting all in power by indirectly imposing on them corruption , because that way they could manipulate all and hold them in a state of dependency .And this state of dependency is true for all whether in alliance or in opposition to the ruling class.So naturaly for the newly arrived ARF, participating in the governments , was the reason for the start of its downfall ,and loss of reputation to the extent of humiliating negligence . For the party to save itself from this dishonarable situation has to witness a total change in its leadership to nurture the people with confidence towards it,and then start real struggle for the improvement of the social situation and the other problems .This not materialized the sympathy towards the ARF will not improve . As a conclusion we see that in fact the people having no hope in any positive change in their lives continue to immigrate which has reached to very critical levels and the future of the nation is really at stake,unless there would be a widespread people’s revolution ,though unfortunately the Armenian history has not witnessed much such acts .I Wish that happens as soon as possible for the good of the people ,the country and the perpetuality of our nation.As for our beloved ARF, that happening ,without it being the real pioneer , we shall be needing smaller and smaller halls to commemorate its future anniversaries…
An anxious partisan