DOUBLE STANDARD IN INTERPRETING HISTORY
James Hakobyan

Lragir
Dec 20 2007
Armenia

Deputy Speaker Vahan Hovanisyan, member of the Bureau and presidential
candidate from the ARF Dashnaktsutyun, voiced an interesting opinion
during the parliamentary hearings on December 19.

He said there cannot be relations between Armenia and Turkey because
democracy and dictatorship cannot have relations. While the majority
of the hall was trying to understand which of Armenia and Turkey is
democratic and which is dictatorship, Vahan Hovanisyan immediately
clarified that Armenia is not a classic democracy but Turkey is a
typical dictatorship. An explanation was expected which did not wait
long. According to Vahan Hovanisyan, a dictatorship is not when someone
dictates their will to others but when besides present history is also
controlled, presenting it as it is needed rather than as it is now.

In fact, neither Armenia nor Turkey are classic democracies. However,
it is at least self-deception when the presidential candidate of a
country tries to persuade the society that Armenia is a democracy
and Turkey is a dictatorship, therefore we cannot have relations with
them. In fact, this is a new idea expressed for the first time, which
explains the absence of relations, which unfortunately is not true.

For Turkey’s part, it may be true. In fact, there are taboos there,
especially regarding the historical events involving Armenians,
and especially the notorious Article 301 which imposes a definite
perception of history without the right to debate. In this connection,
Vahan Hovanisyan is right.

Fortunately, there is no such article in Armenia. However, Armenia
welcomes the existence of another similar article in another country.

France and other states are meant, which prosecute denial of the
Genocide of Armenians. In fact, this move supports and consoles
us the Armenians. But as soon as we view the problem outside the
ethnic prism, we see that we criticize in Turkey what we welcome in
other countries. In other words, in both cases we deal with imposing
history. In this connection, the problem is that the tendency of
imposition of history is also typical of Armenians. Simply it is not
institutionalized and set down in the law.

For instance, what will the reaction and evaluation in Armenia be
if one tries to question the activity of Diasporan young people in
the 1980s which we consider as national liberation heroism, while
they were tried as terrorists abroad? If someone tries to question
the use of these activities, saying that they attracted attention,
were self-denying actions but shaped a negative opinion about the
Armenians, in Armenia he or she would be denounced as Turkish agents.

Or if someone tries to understand, only understand, the role of the
Armenian Apostolic Church in state building, which in fact competed
with the Armenian state, he or she will be denounced as a traitor.

After all, when there was no statehood, the church assumed the mission,
the functions of a national organization, and naturally interest
in maintaining that state of things for a lasting time might have
occurred, when the church replaces the state, in addition, performs
its powers rather than duties. A mere effort to understand this
situation may be met with criticism, defined as a traitor or a spy,
or at least cosmopolitan.

In other words, if the law does not bar efforts to understand
the history not to repeat mistakes, it does not mean that we have
historical democracy because democracy is first of all thinking than
a shape. And in this connection, the difference between the Turks
and us is small, almost insignificant.