In our previous edition, we had presented sociologist Max Webber’s point of view regarding legitimacy. He divided legitimacy in three parts: traditional (based on customs), charismatic (based on the leader’s characteristics and his self-esteem) and legal (based on the laws). Any theory is interesting when it is applied in practical activities. In this article, we will try to see what legitimate paths the Armenian authorities and the opposition take.
First, we must state that both the authorities and opposition make references to the supremacy of law and consider that as a very important principle. Currently, the opposition is contradicting the authorities in obeying the existing laws and trying to represent itself as the one that can come up with better laws; as for the authorities, they are blaming oppositionists for not following legal norms, violating laws and not allowing them to apply them. For example, according to the authorities, on April 12 of last year the opposition was violating the people’s right to be tranquil, the right to move objects around; by not attending the National Assembly sessions, the opposition was forbidding the parliament to carry on the process of passing laws. Basically, this remains the most important value of legitimacy for both the authorities and the opposition.
“Father of the People”- Artashes Geghamyan His political party is turning into more of a group of Geghamyan’s followers who are going after their real, charismatic leader. Charisma is outlined in Geghamyan as a God-given talent. When you watch Geghamyan with his different gestures and acting like a savior on television, you get the impression that he really is a charismatic leader. In addition, when you describe Geghamyan one can use topics from the national epic aimed towards keeping his national character; in other words the so-called national savior. It is clear that “National Unity” becomes a unity around Geghamyan expecting him to save the souls. The only mechanisms applied are the ones pertaining to the religious sphere. What’s also interesting is Geghamyan’s way of talking: he tries to show himself as a universal dictator who will talk and debate with anyone in any “language”; whether it be numbers, references made to poetical verses or historical facts. This is followed by big applauses which remind us of how people used to worship someone during the Soviet era.
The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree- Stepan Demirchyan. In this case, we deal with traditional legitimacy, which unfortunately is not in use today. Thus, we get the contradicting image of charismatic leader Karen Demirchyan-his son. Charisma is not inherited, so Stepan Demirchyan is more blood related to his father-after all, he is his father’s son and his physical appearance is a nuance for rivals to comment on his negative sides. We can see that Stepan Demirchyan is not in the public eye very often, does not give many interviews. The thing he lacks the most is being an individual political figure. Traditional legitimacy is not powerful and makes Demirchyan completely vulnerable as an oppositionist. His pretentiousness is low. Demirchyan considers having his own legitimacy through the “constitutional road” which, if we recall Webber’s comments, feels the need of aggravators to add value to legitimacy.
The family is the basic unit of society- Aram Z. Sargsyan. Here, we also have traditional legitimacy but on a wider scale. The family plays a major role. This legitimacy manifested itself through the appointing of Prime Minister which meant that traditional legitimacy was considered legal. The familiarity of legitimacy is emphasized by Vazgen Sargsyan receiving the title of General, which also forms a basis for national/traditional legitimacy despite any other manifestation. Basically, the family members are compared to national heroes, which are more supreme than the laws. After all, laws are changed during the reign of all authorities. Thus, on one hand Aram Z. Sargsyan is making references to the law and legitimacy, which is also a motive for his struggle; on the other hand, having your own legitimacy leads to national traditions and standards which are above the law. Besides that, Aram Sargsyan tries to present himself as a charismatic leader and this time he has a family background.
The Maury did what he had to do and now the Maury can leave- Levon Ter-Petrosyan appeared in the public eye as a charismatic leader from the start and carried out his actions following the principle of legality. In contrast to the other political figures, he won by being legally elected by the people. Secondly, he remained true to legalities and wished to resign himself. He was presented as someone who brings issues forward legally (the Karabagh conflict), gets elected as president through that and then leaves the political field-defending his legitimacy through the means of resignation. Levon’s silent treatment lets him continue his activities, since he is “playing” the role of the resigned president by following all the rules of the “law”. Ter-Petrosyan has an advantage that the other political figures don’t: he is in the “past”, however, some levels of society tend to go along with the “he was good then, now he is bad” formula. The difficulties and errors of the past remain in the past and people tend to not express their feelings too much. This keeps the elderly above the rest since they are the ones who keep tying the past with their younger years.
Everything new and good is quickly forgotten- Aram Karapetyan. In contrast to other political figures who keep commenting on traditions and continuity, Aram Karapetyan emphasizes the idea of bringing something new. New times are ahead; this is the slogan that is instilled in the minds of his potential followers. This slogan is aimed towards the youth and people that actually want to change things around. However, this slogan expresses uncertainty; after all, one feels uncertain about something new and in order to overcome that uncertainty, we need a charismatic leader which is how Aram Karapetyan tries to present himself. You can see that through his gestures and mimics; you get the impression that he is a man that keeps his word. He emphasizes the role that education plays. Karapetyan is a candidate of political sciences which would have given him the opportunity to present himself as a politician of the RA; also, to use his analyses to bring the idea of moving towards new times forward. The one thing that contradicts this is that the specialist is conceived as a passive person, an observer if you will, who can play the role of an adviser. Basically, his job is to help the charismatic leader, whereas charisma is looked at as finding the best solutions for problems and being spontaneous. In this contradiction, we can observe Aram Karapetyan’s different opinions expressed about different phenomena.
Revelry- Tigran Karapetyan. This political figure tries to synthesize “the boy on the block” and “savior” characters. Tigran Karapetyan is from the outskirts of the city; he has traveled abroad, reached success, but has had a longing to be in his native homeland and work for his people. His legitimacy is all about “sacrificing”, basically leaving behind a promising and profitable career and founding an alternative mass medium all by himself. This alternative mass medium becomes the principal means for Karapetyan to present himself in front of his potential followers and suggest making their childhood dreams a reality: to sing, dance, recite poems or to simply appear on television. I am legitimate because I allow myself to be legitimized-this is Tigan Karapetyan’s point of view. Generally, television tries to show educated and professional individuals and they are supposed to set an example. But Tigran Karapetyan tells his followers that they don’t need to set an example. They have the right to appear on television; as a matter of fact, it’s all theirs. However, this does not mean that he is refusing to be a savior. On the contrary, he came and gave us a chance to speak, he is a politician; he calls different guests to his studio and talks with them in a way that he would talk with the television viewers watching him. He calls the guests to show viewers that he and the guest know more about different topics than the viewer. It’s just that fate has brought to viewer to some position, but they are not inferior to the viewer. While other television networks praise the success that one has reached, Tigran Karapetyan, who has reached success but has not forgotten his past, calls on people who don’t seem to care about life and hopes that he will get some reply.