1. From a social society to national independence
1988 was a turning year for Armenians. For the first time in the past 15 years (starting from 1973), Armenians felt sorry for the leaders of the republic as they faced hardships and went against their thoughts and feelings. Armenians are emotional and that’s going to make things more difficult for us because as a nation, we get inspired like teenagers and disappointed like the elderly…
So, what we had were hundreds of leaders on the stage-leaders who were speaking on behalf of the people, speaking as if they were true leaders, czars and democrats. The people started getting used to them slowly yet surely; each level of society chose its best, while the destruction mechanism chose its own leaders. By early November, we already had the heads of the “Karabagh” committee and they were the right leaders in this political game.
What happened was that we suddenly had France starting to “sponsor” them. For example, Grenoble was helping Vazgen Manukyan, who was the real leader of the “Karabagh” committee back then, while Paris was helping Levon Ter-Petrosyan…What, nobody chose the leaders in Yerevan?
The USSR was a country full of intellectuals and of course, Armenians saw the intellectuals as leaders. The five most important leaders of the committee (besides the abovementioned, Galstyan, Ararktsyan, Manucharyan) were all intellectuals and were similar to one another in many ways. But the forces that were supposed to take the power into their hands needed sources of influence to make the people agree with reforming the country, better yet, destroying it. Everyone was following that kind of leader, but the one who convinced the people the most was Levon Ter-Petrosyan. He was the one with the image of a leader at the time.
Ter-Petrosyan was supposed to play a role in the already planned-out USSR collapse scenario-the role of a leader who understood everything about the national movement and took decisive steps. He was the one who had to rule independent Armenia. The image-makers of that global plan created the image of the first president of Armenia. Tall, lost in his thoughts, attentive and a rough analyst, not a member of his political party, nationalist-this is what the people saw and they bought it. Levon Ter-Petrosyan, who knew a lot about philology, as well as world history and religion, became the first president of Armenia. In fact, by the end of 1991, when Armenians were electing their first president, leaders of the “Karabagh” committee no longer believed in the ideals of 1988. They had gone from a national movement to a party choosing people with original ideas, just like the Bolsheviks. But the president had to show who he really was, his mentality and how he looked at the people’s lifestyle and issues. He did just that. Destruction and cynicism were the main vectors of the Armenia going through reforms-Armenia lost its hundreds and thousands of citizens, whose hopes and fears turned into the reason for the permanent fear and worry for the rest of the people. The country didn’t develop. Let’s recall what Levon Ter-Petrosyan used to say:
“What does Syria have that we don’t?”
I”ll answer: “Nothing. Syria is simply a different country and Syrians look at the world differently. That is the most important thing.”
Soviet Armenia won the war against Azerbaijan and thank God that it was able to do that on time.
The lack of plans for the future, the obscenity (which is still going on today) permitted by the authorities made it impossible for the country to develop. The people who had defended Karabagh and the regions close to the border were hurt as they left the country. Justice plays a very important role in national self-consciousness, especially for a nation that has experienced genocide and the terrifying repressions during the days of Stalin. Well-known historian A. Toynbee says, and I always repeat, that “if there is no justice in the society or the state, then the government or the people either become deformed or perish”. I must say that the current authorities’ pressure for justice doesn’t help form a society, thus it deforms the president, governance and leads the country towards destruction. The lack of justice in the country led to the authorities’ crisis; it also made Levon Ter-Petrosyan resign from office. It turns out that that was only one part of the huge drama.
The second president of Armenia came to power and brought a wave of issues concerning the Karabagh conflict. These issues had to be grouped into one and discussed at the state and international levels. This was a significant time period for Armenia, which was the main negotiator for determining the future of Karabagh. However, by solving this issue, the second president legalized many of the errors made by the former authorities, although those errors were just coming into the light during the first president’s term. Fifteen years is half of the life of an entire generation; a generation growing up, living and not knowing what it means to give objective evaluations about power and different types of people. But after all, they are the ones who are going to elect the new authorities; they are going to unite as one and show the world Armenia’s leaders. The future authorities can be similar to today’s authorities. You get the impression that the government and its branches are against the people. Armenia and the Armenian people are subjected to the same political metamorphoses just like every other country. So, the careful, tactful and intellectual Levon Ter-Petrosyan, who had taken the country from the Soviet functionaries (intellectuality was the first wave of democrats) had to be replaced by a practical and presumed person whose will and analysis was going to be based on stabilizing the army and leading Armenia’s politics towards the Karabagh conflict resolution. However, one of his flaws is that, in contrast to the first president of Armenia, he doesn’t know a lot about finances and economy when it comes to developing the state. This was the reason that hundreds and thousands of Armenians left the country.
Armenians have seen genocide and lived through deprivations. They can only live and work in a developed country. The country’s economy and democratization are the most important issues to think about during the next decade. The new leader not only needs to know how to make good speeches, but also make the people understand the right way of choosing the authorities. No matter how paradoxical this sounds, but large businessmen can help the president because it’s rather easy for them and benefits them a lot. Large businessmen in Armenia and the Diaspora don’t want to be under the control of the government, the president’s administration or the parliamentarians. Why?-because the country can be investigated at any time. In other words, information about Armenia and its economy is not the same as 10 years ago.
How should the second president of Armenia be? I think that he should be strong and fair; he must be unbiased when hearing different ideas and choosing his administrative staff. He has to love the people. The last two presidents proved that they were indifferent to the people. Love is a very strong feeling. The future president of Armenia must understand human nature (the previous two understood, but they didn’t act positively), he must understand the positive role that his allies play; it’s impossible to reform the state mechanism without that. Unfortunately, Armenians go along with the centuries-old negative customs of state governance when it’s time to unite as one and that makes up part of their tragic history. The people have to put in a lot of effort to get rid of those customs. The same thing happened with the Irish. We see the same going on with China and the Eastern European countries. The new president must be fierce, be ready to cooperate with presidents of other countries and be dynamic in solving economic issues and must be up-to-date of the scientific and technological advances. He must be balanced and decisive with a modern world outlook.
He has to be open to the people and consult with them regarding state issues. He shouldn’t be afraid of learning something new in front of his administration staff members. The president has to show that he thinks about each citizen of the country; after all, the citizens elect him. I’ll bring up the second president of the U.S. Thomas Jefferson as an example. He passed very significant laws that the citizens of that democratic country apply to this day. The image of the future president is very important-he has to be modern and not something made up.
Yes, the Armenian people are tired-they go to other countries in search of opportunities, get into different lifestyles, but they don’t want to create a fair Armenia because they don’t believe in miracles. The new president and his team must prove that it’s possible; he has to prove that there are outlooks for a fair country.
So, the first president came to power in light of the declaration of independence, while the second came in light of the Karabagh conflict. The third president needs to raise the level of democracy in the country, especially in the economy. The third president must establish the most important thing in the country-justice. Yes, this is a long process, but without it there is no outlook for the country and it may hurt national security.
In the end, the best go down in history and not the first, second or tenth…