If anything, Raffi Hovanissian should be commended for re-entering the political wars . Unfortunately, little has changed during the intervening months since the presidential elections in February 2013. The opposition political parties are still committed to a let’s-wait-and-see-what-happens attitude. Raffi’s announced plan to travel the length and breadth of Armenia to engage the electorate to tap into the palpable discontent that has been festering for years is a gambit he used previously. As head of the Zharangutyun (Heritage) Party, Raffi seeks to position himself as the leader of the opposition. Nothing wrong with that considering the fact that no one has come forward to fill the leadership vacuum to challenge the administration. Raffi has decided to accept this role. Although the leaders of the other opposition parties are adverse to openly and actively taking on President Sarkisian, it is equally obvious that they will not buy into a situation that anoints Raffi as leader. Secondly, Raffi has yet to define what he is offering the Armenian people when he refers to the need for change, and describe how this change will occur. He has already said that a new situation would exist in Armenia by Sept. 23 (2013). It would be better if he refrained from such declarations that only lessen confidence in his ability to lead when they remain unfulfilled. The Armenian electorate is not only skeptical but cynical when it comes to placing their trust in whoever seeks to lead them. It is a tough barrier that has been created over time by the failure of opposition leaders to deliver. It is a barrier that has to be penetrated before any leader can claim support from a politically meaningful cross-section of the electorate.
Changing the existing form of government is no easy task. It requires more than cosmetic “nips and tucks”–a fundamental restructuring of how government serves the people. It demands the destruction of the oligarchic system, the antithesis of a democracy, that has stifled individual opportunity and initiative and prevents Armenia from achieving its full potential as a free and independent country. Now, sad to say, these 21st-century Armenian oligarchs have replaced the Turkish officials and the rural overlords that plagued our people at will over a century earlier in the historic provinces of Western Armenia.
In our haste to define the existence of a semblance of popular unrest (have we already forgotten the miscalculations of some months earlier?) we are elevating the public demonstrations that resulted in the roll back of the public transportation fare increases in Yerevan, or the demonstrations against rising tuition costs, or the successful protests by neighbors that halted construction of an apartment building in Yerevan that would have adversely affected the quality of the adjacent homes as evidence of a rising popular demand for change.
Unfortunately, the changes these groups sought are redresses of specific problems. They were not demonstrations against the much broader issues affecting Armenia, such as the lack of socioeconomic and political opportunity and equality; or the institutional guarantees that protect basic freedoms; or the equitable administration of justice. These demonstrations are not directed against the administration, but against the manifestations of a culture of corruption and arrogance aided and abetted by the administration. Demonstrating against the effects of this culture of corruption and arrogance is, at best, an obtuse and rather ineffective way of attacking the root cause that generates these problems. Whoever leads must expand this limited scope problem-oriented activism into a much broader based popular movement that will not hesitate to confront the root causes.
Unfortunately the opposition has few tactical options to employ to bring sufficient pressure on the administration to adopt change. Although civil disobedience can be an effective means to represent voter discontent, it also has a serious downside: It has the potential to become destabilizing and sanguinary in its application. This unwanted development may be induced by the more militant participants or by a loss of control by the leader caused by deliberate provocations by the authorities. As it is, many who have been affected by the onerous conditions in Armenia have responded by leaving their homeland in search of opportunity and a better life elsewhere.
Regime change is so easy to say, especially when no one is defining the meaning of “regime change” or the precise meaning of “need for change.” Does either or both mean simply replacing the person who occupies the office of president with no change in the administrative infrastructure and the culture of corruption and arrogance that has become institutionalized within Armenia? Or does either or both refer to the need to restructure the system of governance. If so, how does whoever leads plan to have this happen?
The adversary the opposition faces is a political leader who is the president of Armenia and leader of the majority Republican Party that controls parliament. His party governs the marzes (districts) and, more significantly, the Yerevan city government. The general officers and more than likely strategically placed field grade officers in the military are loyal to him. He has the support of the powerful oligarchs, who will not easily give up their influence or wealth, their minions, and the avaricious “bottom feeders” who somehow benefit from the misery that the system inflicts upon the Armenian people. Unless there is a seismic change in existing relations, he has the support of the Russian government. And not to be overlooked is the apathy of a segment of the electorate that, for one or more legitimate reasons, wish to remain above the fray. This is not being pessimistic, but a recognition of reality. His recent unilateral decision to have Armenia join a Russian-sponsored Custom’s Union is ample evidence of his disdain of the opposition. Simply put, President Sarkisian controls the apparatus of government, which makes him an extremely formidable adversary to confront.
The current thinking of some is that change can take place long before Sarkisian’s term in office is over in 2018. I can say with certainty that this is an unrealistic assessment of the situation. To suggest that putting Armenia on the proper track to achieving a robust economy and improving the quality of life of its people can be accomplished in quick time during Sarkisian’s term in office is misleading the electorate. It trivializes the systemic nature of the problem and the Herculean effort required to change course. A course that has been navigated for some two decades.
The Armenia people are cautious and conservative. They are inured to difficulties and have yet to arrive at that point where a significant segment of the electorate rises to support a vigorous and persistent campaign against the administration. This passivity has inhibited the rise of a meaningful opposition. As stated earlier, for some the solution was to leave the land of their birth. However, we should also consider if a leader exists who will have the strength of his convictions and the determination to actually mount the proverbial ramparts as did the legendary Jeanne d’Arc against the English and who will be able to brave the counteroffensive that is unleashed against him.
The very last thing Armenia needs is to permanently fracture the loyalty of the population. We are one people and one country. It is a catch-22 situation that the opposition faces in seeking change. Change is absolutely necessary, but it must come from a careful harnessing of popular support from concerned civilians and the various groups of activists. It requires a broad base of support from various segments of society, and its objectives and methodology must be geared to encouraging people as well as opposition political leaders to participate.
That stage where a popular uprising against the existing administration and power structure is imminent has yet to be reached. And it doesn’t seem likely that it will be reached during Sarkisian’s term of office. Given the many and diverse problems and issues facing the electorate, it is telling that the political parties remain unable to join forces in response to the needs of the Armenian people. Surely there must be common ground on some issues that would encourage cooperation. If this required display of unity cannot be accomplished, please let us not delude ourselves into believing we can mount a successful opposition movement that will lead to a restructuring of government where opportunity, equality, freedom, and justice will apply to all Armenians. Failing this, the only viable alternative would be for the opposition parties to devise a strategy to mitigate the debilitating effects of President Sarkisian’s final term in office.
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
Here is a thought, and I don’t know if it’s true or not: Maybe the rank and file citizens of Armenia have basically the same mindset and values – learned from Soviet days – as the Armenian government and oligarchs, and that may be why it is particularly difficult for Armenia to change. There are surely many good people, but perhaps not enough of them.
Mr Mensoian’s articles are always stimulating. But I think he is being a bit too harsh on President Sargsyan, who inherited a difficult situation that has, in many respects, only gotten more difficult. Knowing personally both Raffi and Serzh, I believe each of them has Armenia’s best interests at heart, but they come at the challenges from very different experiences and perspectives. Minas’s comment has a lot of validity, and I would just add that all of the post-Soviet states suffer from some mixture of the same problems as Armenia, only Armenia has some additional ones. I don’t think anyone should be comparing the current regime to that of the Ottoman Turks. That’s a low blow.
Very well stated Mr. Mensoian. I strongly disagree with Mr. Evans opinion that you were too harsh on Serzh. Serzh inherited the difficult situation which he himself participated in creating, this not an inheritance, but rather a continuation of an unfinished work. I also disagree that Serzh has Armenians best interest in mind. With all due respect Mr. Evans, but apparently the Serzh you know is not that which other people who have access to sit down with him and discuss issues know. The Serzh even more influential people who meet with him one on one know is that of someone who is not patriotic, does not care what people say about him (the media, protesters, individuals), admits to being involved in criminal activity and does not hesitate to use illegal force to eliminate opposition that might in fact be a real challenge. One thing I do agree with is that no one should be comparing the current regime to that of the Ottoman Turks. That truly is a low blow to them as the Ottoman Turks could never have been so ruthless. As my grandfather, Shahan Natalie was so famously known for saying, “An Armenian who harms another Armenian is worse than a Turk…” Mr. Evans, if you ever find yourself in Los Angeles, please look me up as we really should talk and exchange notes.