Let's see if we can view the situation in Armenia objectively. There can be no question that the three administrations that have governed Armenia since its independence in 1991 have failed to keep faith with the Armenian people. At the same time, let us not absolve any political party from its responsibility for allowing these conditions to persist.
Barevolution rally in Yerevan earlier this year. (Photo by Khatchig Mouradian)[/ca
Or, subscribe now for unlimited access
By submitting your email address you agree for Hairenik Association, Inc. to send you communication by email.
Already a subscriber?Log in here
This story is FREE for you...
Create a free account to access this and four more articles, and get more sent to you with our e-newsletter.By submitting your email address you agree for Hairenik Association, Inc. to send you communication by email.
A THOUGHTFUL SUMMARY OF CURRENT EVENTS IN ARMENIA BY MICHRAL MENZOIAN. GENERALLT HE IS RIGHT ON TAEGET.JOHN MANUELIAN
let’s face it Hovanessian is no statesman. Following the election he was more disappointed in his loss than worrying about the Armenian people and improving the government. He was the last chance for a meaningful change and we lost it. Now we have to wait a while before things change in Armenia. He had the mandate to influence the government of Serge Sarkissian and he threw it away. We have to wait for the next generation of the politicians and suffer through the current conditions another 15 years.
Yes, sadly enough Hovanissian got carried away with too much self-regard and spoilt his unique chance to play a leading role in the opposition. By this, not only did he lose the fruits of his hard-won achievement in the election, but disappointed many of his admirers in and outside Armenia. Hopefully, he will learn a lesson form his post-election mismanagement for future.
Besides this, the opposition forces in general suffer from a chronic weakness of egocentricity which prevents them to play a sensible role in the politics of Armenia. Untill such time the opposition forces and the political elite in Armenia haven’t learned to form coalitions, which is always formed through give and take, Armenia will not have a decent measure of democracy and rule of law.
Though the above comments,plus what Major Mensoian writes are in conformity with the gradual deterioration that dear Raffi’s campaigning has undergone,due to a few factors though…
Not just his being a bit off track now and then.thus>/
it is not quite coalition that some mention but lack of cooperation amongst people like /Raffi.Not just him.Take e.g. Mr. Baruyr Hairikian*BTW how’s he coming up in Amsterdam or is he back in Yerevan..When latter was campiagning ,I watched clsoedly what he was delivering in his discourses…pretty much Raff9.That is trying to “going it alone”. He claimed that if only 2 yrs the presidency of RA woulkd be his, he would do this that…
He never bothered to mention Raffi or Bagratian.Everyone one is simply INKNISHKHAN..Soverign….in a tiny country like RA. with two major Foes around and then trying to do it ALONE!!!
Teamwork is necessary amongst people who aspire to MAKE CHANGE.
Otherwise like Avery here has opined…sorry to say, the present unfair and sad situation will prevail to the detriment of above,giving green light to those at the helm to CARRY ON…
The armneian as yet has to learn the art of cooperating,doing thigns in teamwork…period.
sorry Mr. Palandjian: I have not opined in this thread (until this post). You must be confusing me someone else.
IF I had opined, I would not have opined that it is, quote, “unfair” and “sad” situation. Quite the contrary. The Republican Party and President Serj Sargsyan were indeed given a bright Green light to carry on: by the 58% of Armenia’s electorate. Democracy at work.
I know people in RH’s camp cannot accept their massive defeat, but too bad: Armenia won. God bless Armenia.
Addendum,
Sorry for above hastily and badly written post.Please excuse me-mostly due to jet-lag too.I wish to add that long before the elections I wrote that pres.Serge Sargsyan could-if he would-arrange a HASHDVOGHAKAN-truce-like Gov.after being re-elected and bring in all the contending parties(meaning their Elite) and try to form a cabinet that would be just that.That is composed of the mentioned plus indeed fone ea from our traditional and a few non so political parties.Thus ,it would be more that a coaltion gov.that is usually formed in some countries. Ours cannot all of a sudden act like those.We need ,first of all to be more tolerant of ea other and form Convergence,rather than coalition.There are many ,as yet to be reformed tactics that can be employed in our system of Gov.also why not in the Diaspora as well.For latter also is rather centrifugal,fragmented and so far impossible to consider as a Hshdvoghakan -Truce Governance.Anyhow,I shall refrain from commenting for the time being and see what the outcome will be ,as I intend to write yet another of myu ¨paper¨s to be sent to many individuals establishments and Armenian media.
Great article with great points. As I have stated before, free exchange of ideas, including criticism of the opposition, is key to the success of our nation.
.
A few quotes from the article stand out:
“There is a fine line separating Hovannisian’s peaceful rallies … from becoming a sanguineous movement led by people who feel that once again they have been thwarted …” I agree completely. As I have stated before, all this talk about whether to have a revolution or not is irrelevant. Both the government and the opposition need to understand: if there is no satisfactory change, there will be revolution, and if it’s without control, it will be quite sanguineous.
Another good point: “Each move taken to counteract a tactical failure can be expected to escalate the level of confrontation.” I have always been amused by the immature tactics of Armenia’s opposition leaders, when they make the demand “resign or else.” And then of course the government doesn’t resign, and it’s the end of the story. The opposition will be much more effective if it demands certain changes in the law or in the constitutional system, and then incrementally escalates its tactics when the government denies the changes. Plus, the government may be more willing to make legal and systematic reforms than changes in the individuals who are in power. The legal changes, if done right, will bring about power change at a later time anyway.
.
Finally, I fully agree with this quote: “Pre-election unity is the key to winning control of the Yerevan City Council not hoped for post-election consensus.” This article, perhaps unwittingly, demonstrates the problems with the proportional electoral system in Armenia. It results in breaking the opposition into little parties, which helps the Republican party, since it always has a fractured opposition. That’s where I disagree with Raffi, who demands that the entire parliament become proportional. Coalitions are inherently unstable, and the parties will most of the time act in their self interest. This is a human feature, not an Armenian feature. What Armenia needs is a majoritarian (or plurality) electoral system, such as in the U.S. This will force people to vote for the likeliest candidates in a given precinct, which will lead to a single opposition party. This will be the end of the monopoly by the Republican party. Of course, the voters may realize this after one ore two elections. And therefore Armenia will need another electoral change—elections every 2 years (such as in the U.S.). This way, the public will not have to wait for five years. Which will give the people enormous hope for change and help reduce emigration, as emigration is primarily due to loss of hope.
.
Of course, the opposition needs to unite for one time to change the system. The reason they have failed so far maybe because Raffi has not presented good ideas to unite around, or maybe the parties just don’t want to unite out of their natural self-interest. In the second case, activists do not need to wait for Raffi or the parties to unite, they can unite their supporters from among the people by presenting good ideas and strategies, and then follow the incremental escalation strategy suggested by the article.
Mr. Palandjian,
When I say the opposition has to learn to form and act in coalition, it means in fact readiness to copoperate with other parties and their leaders, putting aside self-interest, at least to some degree, etc. Raffi could in the first place have entered into give and take negotiations with the ARF, Ramgavars, HAK, all of whom showed some degree of sympathy towards him. Incidentally, I don’t find Baruyr Hairikaina whom you manetion a significant political partner. But, anyway Raffi was moved by self-esteem and made the campaign, which could have encompassed many other forces, his own personal one.
Vahagn
What you are suggesting is the so-called two-party system which is prevalent in Anglo-American countries. I don’t see it happen in Armenia, at least, in the near future given the Armenian character which is unfortunately to a great extent still egocentric especially in the political field. In many of the European democracies there are a number of political parties at work which try hard to attract voters by competing democratically. And when there is a possibility of acting in unison they grab the opportunity for the common benefit. This is why in these countries there is almost always a coalition government formed by parties who have fared well and served people better. Stability or unstability of coalitions again depends on the degree of the political culture and the sense of responsibility of the people in a given country.
Arshag, I usually have issues with the idea that Armenians are more egocentric than the average human, but let’s assume it’s true. If the Armenian parties are egocentric, how will they ever form sustainable coalitions in a proportional/multi-party system? Isn’t the majoritarian/two-party system more suitable for the egocentric parties?
.
Imagine there is such a system in Armenia. Say, in each district, each voter will vote for his preferred party. Because of the fragmented opposition, most likely a Republican will win. By the next election, however (which is why elections should be every 2 years), the voters will have learned their lesson, and regardless of their preference, they will vote for the likeliest opposition candidate. This will force the opposition parties to present the likeliest candidate in a given district. They will have to do it one of two ways. Either the parties will be forced to present one candidate, or each party will work extra hard to convince the voters why their candidate is the best. After one or two elections, the most viable opposition party will emerge, and the people in each district will vote for that one. Such a system forces the egocentric parties to unite prior the elections.
.
I agree that stability in a coalition system may depend on the political culture. When I think of coalitions, I think of Italy, where in 2013 each of the 4 parties won 25 percent of the seats in the parliament. The Italian papers wrote “the winner is ungovernability.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21587150
Maybe you think of a more stable country like Germany. But the problem is, if Armenia continues to be multi-party, what are the guarantees that it will be more like Germany than Italy? Italy has been democratic for over 60 years, and it still suffers from instability. Can Armenia afford to be unstable for 60 years? That is one of the reasons I support the majoritarian system.
Avery
It could have been a win-win situation, but now it’s lose-lose situation.
Vahagn
The more we move towards the south in Europe the more fragile the democracies in these regions are. In fact, it doesn’t have to do much with the number of parties in a given countries. In England for example, there are other parties at work besides the Conservatives and Labour. But, for either system to work be it two-party or multy-party, the level of political education and the sense of civic responsibility of the public always plays an essential role. The political leaders have a crucial role in educating and inspiring their people. It seems though, our leaders have to learn it the hard way themselves.