Tweet
THE DEATH OF THE SOVIET ARMENIAN
Lragir.am
08/02/10
Hrant Ter-Abrahamyan: publicist, historian. Does not accept the
irrelevantly high self-evaluation common in Armenia.
Hrant, your assessment to the current situation. What are the primary
issues today?
Today's situation is the continuation of the same situation; we have
the same problems of the last year. Of course, those who criticize
the opposition increased in number, but although we criticize it
sometimes even justly, the existence of the opposition is positive
by itself until there is no real alternative. By saying opposition,
let us understand not only political opposition.
By saying opposition, I understand the oppositional sphere of the
public which passed through the 2008 movement. From this point, I
think, that there is a sphere of the public, which regardless whether
the opposition will strengthen or weaken, will not return to its
previous situation. We have matured very much during these two years.
As to the indifferent part of the society they have always been
feeling apathy towards everything. I think it is a group of people
who are stuck in the past for ever. Especially considering that after
the protocols signed in Zurich, many people came out and celebrated
something. I do not have any expectation from the soviet-Armenian
nation. My whole hope is the new generation. Strange it may seem but
we are forming as a nation only now. The soviet-Armenian people died
or are to die.
Many, not noticing the same enthusiasm within the HAK, present new
initiatives.
I am not interested in the formation of a new force. In 2003, the
opposition left and a new one came. Now we say this one is not good
either, let us form a new one. For what? For us to say after two
years that we need a new one again? I think we need to come out of
this cycle.
I do not think that the main aim of the HAK was to take the power. I
think it had great potential thanks to its supporters but it did not
manage to use it properly. I see today's main shortage in the absence
of ideological alternative. No ideological work was carried out during
these two years.
The current situation is to be clearly analyzed. All of us know the
situation is bad but the reasons have not been found out. We may
be found out to be opposite to different and opposing things. To be
against the current situation does not mean to be allies. Going deep,
we may find out that someone is against the independence of Armenia
and the others see their future under the influence of Russia and
post-soviet situation.
I think at least a small group of people is to be formed having inner
consensus on the main issues in case of the formation of a new force.
What I see now are attempts to show newly-wrapped oppositions of the
last 20 years. Perhaps, I am more interested in a smaller movement,
not a nation one, but with clearer formulations. The word "nation"
has long ago lost its significance. Today the nation has more layers
and is a more complicated structure than during the soviet period.
The second main issue is the aim of the oppositional sphere of
the public and the technologies it has to use for the solution of
problems. Besides, what happened in the last two years is to be
analyzed to be able to move forward.
Hrant, what kind of a political force would you like to see?
I would like to see a force which would clearly say that the roots
of our problems lie in the soviet heritage and in the fact of being
under Russia's influence today.
Armenians used to be a part of the Western civilization and we need
to restore this line to find our Armenian identity and to bury the
identity of the soviet Armenia. Until we did not come out of Russia's
influence we will not solve any issue in the country.
Plus, the political force is to propose concrete technologies. For
example, how it is going to fight against electoral bribes and
breaches. As well as, a political force is to show clearly the model
it uses inside, thus, I have to be sure that it is democracy. After
all, politics is based on one thought: no policy and no change of
it can take place without it. For example, the revolution in France
did not happen by itself, before, a whole generation of intellectuals
formulated all the problems starting from the fundamental philosophical
ones.
Interviewer Siranuysh Papyan
Lragir.am
08/02/10
Hrant Ter-Abrahamyan: publicist, historian. Does not accept the
irrelevantly high self-evaluation common in Armenia.
Hrant, your assessment to the current situation. What are the primary
issues today?
Today's situation is the continuation of the same situation; we have
the same problems of the last year. Of course, those who criticize
the opposition increased in number, but although we criticize it
sometimes even justly, the existence of the opposition is positive
by itself until there is no real alternative. By saying opposition,
let us understand not only political opposition.
By saying opposition, I understand the oppositional sphere of the
public which passed through the 2008 movement. From this point, I
think, that there is a sphere of the public, which regardless whether
the opposition will strengthen or weaken, will not return to its
previous situation. We have matured very much during these two years.
As to the indifferent part of the society they have always been
feeling apathy towards everything. I think it is a group of people
who are stuck in the past for ever. Especially considering that after
the protocols signed in Zurich, many people came out and celebrated
something. I do not have any expectation from the soviet-Armenian
nation. My whole hope is the new generation. Strange it may seem but
we are forming as a nation only now. The soviet-Armenian people died
or are to die.
Many, not noticing the same enthusiasm within the HAK, present new
initiatives.
I am not interested in the formation of a new force. In 2003, the
opposition left and a new one came. Now we say this one is not good
either, let us form a new one. For what? For us to say after two
years that we need a new one again? I think we need to come out of
this cycle.
I do not think that the main aim of the HAK was to take the power. I
think it had great potential thanks to its supporters but it did not
manage to use it properly. I see today's main shortage in the absence
of ideological alternative. No ideological work was carried out during
these two years.
The current situation is to be clearly analyzed. All of us know the
situation is bad but the reasons have not been found out. We may
be found out to be opposite to different and opposing things. To be
against the current situation does not mean to be allies. Going deep,
we may find out that someone is against the independence of Armenia
and the others see their future under the influence of Russia and
post-soviet situation.
I think at least a small group of people is to be formed having inner
consensus on the main issues in case of the formation of a new force.
What I see now are attempts to show newly-wrapped oppositions of the
last 20 years. Perhaps, I am more interested in a smaller movement,
not a nation one, but with clearer formulations. The word "nation"
has long ago lost its significance. Today the nation has more layers
and is a more complicated structure than during the soviet period.
The second main issue is the aim of the oppositional sphere of
the public and the technologies it has to use for the solution of
problems. Besides, what happened in the last two years is to be
analyzed to be able to move forward.
Hrant, what kind of a political force would you like to see?
I would like to see a force which would clearly say that the roots
of our problems lie in the soviet heritage and in the fact of being
under Russia's influence today.
Armenians used to be a part of the Western civilization and we need
to restore this line to find our Armenian identity and to bury the
identity of the soviet Armenia. Until we did not come out of Russia's
influence we will not solve any issue in the country.
Plus, the political force is to propose concrete technologies. For
example, how it is going to fight against electoral bribes and
breaches. As well as, a political force is to show clearly the model
it uses inside, thus, I have to be sure that it is democracy. After
all, politics is based on one thought: no policy and no change of
it can take place without it. For example, the revolution in France
did not happen by itself, before, a whole generation of intellectuals
formulated all the problems starting from the fundamental philosophical
ones.
Interviewer Siranuysh Papyan