THE CORRIDOR OF SUCCESSION

Hayots Ashkharh
Dec 21 2007
Armenia

Currently there are very few people who doubt that Serge Serge
Sargsyan will hold a convincing victory in the upcoming presidential
elections. His advantage over the other candidates is extremely
great. There is still a certain intrigue over the following question:
whether the elections will be held in two stages or everything will
finish on February 19.

Actually, these are the first presidential elections in our reality
when the issue of the country’s leadership is going to be solved by
the principle of succession. Is it good or bad? Can the above-mentioned
principle be considered democratic enough?

What does succession mean?

It is the maintenance of the country’s current policy with all its
significant elements, after the change of its top leadership. Its
extreme manifestation is a situation when, judging by the developments
of life, an ordinary citizen not interested in politics does not even
notice that his country’s leadership has changed.

The positive aspects of this phenomenon are obvious: the country is
granted the opportunity of solving its long-term strategic problems
(envisaged for decades). And that is impossible without a legal
successor; the rulers will not set tasks whose solution obviously
exceeds the time-period of their being in power. And they will do
the right thing, as in such situation it is an obvious distortion of
state activity.

But a positive phenomenon is impossible without something negative. A
policy which has been unalterable for several decades on end inevitably
leads to stagnation, Not only because the world constantly changes,
but also because a starting policy contains flaws which, in case of
remaining unalterable, will accumulate and multiply in the course
of years.

Being all in all undisputable, this postulate serves as a basis for the
western liberal thought, as it proves the importance and alternative
nature of democracy. As though, the absence of periodical changes
of policy would lead to stagnation. However, the contrary situation
is no less important. If, in case of a programmed and frequent shift
of power, the policy radically changes all the time, the horizon of
programming is reduced to five or maximum ten years.

And this is the most direct way to absolute degradation.

As a matter of fact, people perfectly realize it in the west as
well. And they realize it on the level of real politics vs. public
oratory. In the United States there is, certainly, a shift of power
every 4 or 8 years; furthermore, there are frequent changes of policy
as well. However, such changes actually take place within strictly
narrow circles. There are certain societal mechanisms which, being
difficult to notice and understand, prevent those changes from going
beyond the above-mentioned circles.

Those mechanisms do not lead to stagnation, because, if necessary,
they allow for quite a sharp change of policy. But this happens only
in a situation when society has become "too mature", and there will
be a disaster in case such changes do not occur. Therefore, as shown
by the example of the same western countries, if one wants to make
a significant progress, succession should not at all be absolute in
character; it should be extremely significant.

We too, are currently pursuing this road. We are developing the
tradition of a periodical shift of power, with an inevitable change
of approaches towards politics, because without it, there will be
stagnation. But not with a great change; otherwise, there will be no
succession. And there are no serious reasons for a sharp change of
policy, because there is neither a crisis nor a pre-crisis situation.

That’s to say, ending his term of office but handing over the post of
President to Serge Sargsyan, his legal successor, Robert Kocharyan is
creating a tradition, which will serve as grounds for the mechanism
of balancing the necessity of power "conservation" for the sake of
the maintenance of long-term strategy, and its constant "shaking" for
the sake of the prevention of stagnation-like phenomena. And this is
the dosage required for legal successors. No reasonable person can
say that this is an anti-democratic path.

However, because that mechanism works only in a situation when the new
policy does not fully coincide with the old one (and it is impossible
otherwise), it is necessary to predetermine the possible changes in
the well-known circles.

Naturally, the goals and priorities of foreign policy should be
maintained without any changes. The attitude towards the Krabakh
settlement process must be slightly reviewed. And the economic
development and self-reliance policies must remain unchanged.

But, as regards such spheres as fight against corruption, it is
desirable to make them stricter. The same concerns social policy,
education, culture and a number of other spheres.

Only in case of such succession will the county have the opportunity to
solve long-term strategic problems and avoid losing its competitiveness
in the region.