HETQ ONLINE
Does Armenia Have a Future?
Hrach Bayadyan
June 18, 2007
Many people speak today about how the South Caucasus is an artificially
created region, where the member countries have differing (and sometimes
opposing) interests and wishes. Will it unite in the wake of other
countries’ entry into the region, or the region’s desire to be part of
broader international bodies? Or will it break down as a result of
centrifugal forces? It is hard to tell. What is obvious though, is that this
region – where the main attraction seems to be the oil reserves of
Azerbaijan – is unsuitable for Armenia, which has been isolated and left out
of all programs of regional collaboration. At the same time, the unresolved
conflict with Azerbaijan as well as policy positions favoring Russia and
Iran in both global and regional issues, have created an unpleasant
situation for Armenia, establishing an image which is neither presentable
nor attractive in any way.
What are the possible solutions to this situation? One of the proposals is
to use Armenia’s intellectual resources efficiently and to achieve economic
progress through the development of advanced technological solutions. But
the sorry state of education and science in Armenia today does not even
offer a shred of hope of that happening anytime soon. On the other hand, the
government’s inability to form realistic and achievable strategic plans or
to plan the future based on today’s global reality is obvious. One cannot
even speak of any constructive activities on the part of the country’s
political parties.
It is a known fact, for example, that the Armenian government has worked
with a number of different forces (ranging from American-Armenian
entrepreneurs who have been successful in computer programming to the World
Bank) to make Armenia a `new India’ in the computer programming global
market. This was supposed to give the country a new global image and also
facilitate the development of the economy, modernize society and improve
living conditions. But it was clear from the beginning, that this objective
was not achievable.
The issue of digitizing the manuscripts at the Matenadaran, which caused a
lot of noise, showed yet again the sad and primitive standards in this
sphere particularly, where Armenia is supposed to have `great potential.’ In
reality, what is obvious is the absence of experts with basic knowledge and
the ability to make themselves understood. The `intellectual’ chaos that
erupted was aimed against the world and immediately fell in line with ideas
such as endangered `national values’, `untouchable cultural treasures’ and
other similar topics of rhetoric thinking.
Another issue is the whole idea of creating a more democratic society, which
is being presented more than ever as a real option for the development of
society, gaining positive reaction from the West and for becoming a member
of the European family one day. According to that idea, one would hope that
democracy would make Armenia competitive in the region, even despite the
incompatibility of some western ideas with Armenian national traits and the
`Armenian mentality’ regarding some topics that will not be mentioned here.
Some analysts are even willing to go further, by linking the democratization
of both conflicting sides with the possibility to resolve the Karabakh
conflict.
What is Democracy?
In the last years of the Soviet Union, as well as in the first years after
it, Armenia’s future was being constructed using Soviet building blocks.
After the Empire collapsed, the roads and means away from Soviet reality led
to everything being looked at in a Soviet context. The homeland that
Armenians dreamed about had unavoidably been based on ideas, self-evaluation
and a perspective of the world that were all based on Soviet times. The
vision of Armenia during the fall of the Soviet Empire was vaguely that of a
nation state with modern industries, a rich cultural tradition coexisting
with modern culture, high levels of education and science, and so on. And
one of the main reasons for the great disappointment in the post-Soviet
years was that false vision. Today, another example of a similar false
perspective on the future which has not been fully thought through is the
idea of democracy. The idea of selling the democracy of the West, which is
like a food item past its expiry date, is actually a very lucrative business
for some non-government organizations in Armenia. There are parties and
politicians for whom democracy has become an expression of opposition to the
government, a sort of political niche. `Democracy’ is also the name of the
game that Armenia, like many other former Soviet republics, is playing with
the West, particularly with the European Union. But it seems that it is also
self-deception of sorts, giving on the opportunity to look to the future
optimistically, which then relieves one of the headache of having to think
about that future.
Generally speaking, the central idea of democracy is liberal representative
democracy. But the paradox is that the more democracy spreads in the world,
the less it seems to be trusted by developed democratic societies in the
world. Although the dominant form of democratic rule remains liberal
representative democracy, there is now a democratic crisis in capitalist
societies and pessimism regarding its future possibilities. Debates about
the limitations and shortcomings of democracy continue, as do discussions
about the different models of democracy – representative, developmental,
participatory, radical, democratic democracy and so on, and today, in the
age of the Internet, also about instantaneous democracy.
Let us say, for example, that one must speak about participatory democracy
when discussing the issues of `election bribes’ and `buying votes’. In the
case of Armenia, is it not suitable to speak of distinguishing between
democracy as a method and democracy in content. Democracy, first of all, is
a method of political representation, and the dream of organizing free, fair
and transparent elections in Armenia one day fits nicely into this approach.
However, the idea of democracy in content suggests a system wherein one
allows the participation of people in public affairs and allows the removal
of obstacles to the social and political participation of people.
But is democracy intertwined with capitalism, or is it possible to imagine
other models, particularly one of democracy and socialism? And what does
democracy mean in this era of globalization – in the conditions of the
decreasing importance of the nation state in general, and in Armenia’s case,
in the conditions of growing influence of Russia and other global powers…
The answers to these questions should not be expected from politicians or
parliamentarians, but rather from scientists and analysts or in other words,
from sociologists. But where are those scientists? That brings us back to
the question of education and science.