Tweet
There will be a need for ideology
Yerkir.am
March 23, 2007
The electoral campaign will soon start officially. Will it be a
contest of ideas or will the political forces use the strategy of
denouncing others to appear as the most honest ones? Will they speak
about their platforms, ideas? Or will they prefer political
advertising based on black PR? We asked member of ARF's parliamentary
faction, writer Ruben Hovsepian to comment on these questions.
R.H.: Let me say first that the campaign has started long ago. Neither
this campaign nor the official campaign that will soon start will be a
contest of ideas. Today it is even difficult to say that our political
arena is truly political. It is more electoral with the only question
being who will get more votes. And the means do not matter. Political
forces resort to all sorts of means except for politics and
ideology. From what I have observed, I can make one conclusion ` the
campaign will continue in the same way. There are very few ideological
entities in our political arena and even these few ones will be forced
not to adhere to their ideologies once they see the forms of electoral
campaign practiced by the majority. They too will resort to other
measures to get votes. Of course, the elections will take place, maybe
they will even be free and fair. Elections are a political action, and
therefore in this respect the country appears to be in a stalemate, or
even worse, it experiences a regress. Because it is not the contest of
ideologies that leads the electoral processes.
Q: Does the society need ideology?
A: I cannot clear say now if it does or does not. But I know that
these elections will be the bottom line after which the society will
feel nostalgic for some ideology. The political parties and policy
makers have developed this attitude towards the elections in the
society. However, the society also develops by itself and I think it
will feel a need for ideology in the coming years. The demand for
ideology will rise and the greater this demand becomes, the more
important ARF's role will be. The reason is that ARF is the strongest
political party in terms of its ideological content.
Q: In the pre-electoral chaos, people sometimes find themselves
joining this or that party without often knowing what party that is,
or what ideology it carries. Deputy Chairman of the National Assembly
Vahan Hovhannissian also made a statement on this calling on people
not to give their passports to anyone. Do you think this is a result
of indifference towards political processes?
A: As I already said, the political arena is not political in reality;
ideas do not matter in our politics. This is the same logic that
underlies the practice of changing parties by our politicians. We have
an atmosphere in which such changes of political affiliation are not
considered shameful. No matter how hard they try to explain that they
change their political affiliation not for the purpose of getting into
the parliament one thing is clear: there is a collective entity that
is called political party, faction, or whatever you want to call it,
that has its own ideology, and if you can change ideological
affiliation so easily explaining your act by the justification that
there are so many parties and they are so similar to each other that
it does not matter which one you join, well then¦ It does matter
because the society, no matter how low it has fallen together with the
politics, it still can see and understand. The society might follow
the same decline as the politics is undergoing, but there comes a
point below which no further decline is possible. At this point the
society will feel the need for ideology. Once this need is
materialized all these phenomena will be eliminated, the society
itself will reject them. These elections will be the end point. The
next elections will aim at restoration and rehabilitation of the
society.
Q: As opposed to the elections in 2003, the opposition failed to
unite. Were ambitions the reason for this? Will the opposition's being
fragmented intensify the electoral campaign?
A: To be sincere, yes there are some considerations deriving from
individuals ' ambitions. But I think it would not have been correct if
the opposition had united. If they had the intention to unite they
should do it in another way. If I were in the opposition, I would
suggest to do the following: why does it matter to be in one list? Go
for elections under different lists but support each other. What does
it mean to work together? It means to be different but together. While
unification would mean that they all would become the same. It is
impossible to unite people who have different positions, this would be
an artificial unification.
Q: What will be the different of the next parliament from the present
one? A: My considerations presented above do not allow me to say that
the next parliament will be better than this one. One of the
advantages of the new parliament will be that some people from this
parliament might not get into the new parliament. I am sure that the
political arena in the country will change when new people appear on
it. But these should not be arbitrary people. The most useful thing
about the new parliament will be that it will generate the need, the
nostalgia for ideology that I was speaking about. The absurd situation
will get to a point after which the improvement of the political arena
and the society will become an imperative.
By Karine MANGASSARIAN
Yerkir.am
March 23, 2007
The electoral campaign will soon start officially. Will it be a
contest of ideas or will the political forces use the strategy of
denouncing others to appear as the most honest ones? Will they speak
about their platforms, ideas? Or will they prefer political
advertising based on black PR? We asked member of ARF's parliamentary
faction, writer Ruben Hovsepian to comment on these questions.
R.H.: Let me say first that the campaign has started long ago. Neither
this campaign nor the official campaign that will soon start will be a
contest of ideas. Today it is even difficult to say that our political
arena is truly political. It is more electoral with the only question
being who will get more votes. And the means do not matter. Political
forces resort to all sorts of means except for politics and
ideology. From what I have observed, I can make one conclusion ` the
campaign will continue in the same way. There are very few ideological
entities in our political arena and even these few ones will be forced
not to adhere to their ideologies once they see the forms of electoral
campaign practiced by the majority. They too will resort to other
measures to get votes. Of course, the elections will take place, maybe
they will even be free and fair. Elections are a political action, and
therefore in this respect the country appears to be in a stalemate, or
even worse, it experiences a regress. Because it is not the contest of
ideologies that leads the electoral processes.
Q: Does the society need ideology?
A: I cannot clear say now if it does or does not. But I know that
these elections will be the bottom line after which the society will
feel nostalgic for some ideology. The political parties and policy
makers have developed this attitude towards the elections in the
society. However, the society also develops by itself and I think it
will feel a need for ideology in the coming years. The demand for
ideology will rise and the greater this demand becomes, the more
important ARF's role will be. The reason is that ARF is the strongest
political party in terms of its ideological content.
Q: In the pre-electoral chaos, people sometimes find themselves
joining this or that party without often knowing what party that is,
or what ideology it carries. Deputy Chairman of the National Assembly
Vahan Hovhannissian also made a statement on this calling on people
not to give their passports to anyone. Do you think this is a result
of indifference towards political processes?
A: As I already said, the political arena is not political in reality;
ideas do not matter in our politics. This is the same logic that
underlies the practice of changing parties by our politicians. We have
an atmosphere in which such changes of political affiliation are not
considered shameful. No matter how hard they try to explain that they
change their political affiliation not for the purpose of getting into
the parliament one thing is clear: there is a collective entity that
is called political party, faction, or whatever you want to call it,
that has its own ideology, and if you can change ideological
affiliation so easily explaining your act by the justification that
there are so many parties and they are so similar to each other that
it does not matter which one you join, well then¦ It does matter
because the society, no matter how low it has fallen together with the
politics, it still can see and understand. The society might follow
the same decline as the politics is undergoing, but there comes a
point below which no further decline is possible. At this point the
society will feel the need for ideology. Once this need is
materialized all these phenomena will be eliminated, the society
itself will reject them. These elections will be the end point. The
next elections will aim at restoration and rehabilitation of the
society.
Q: As opposed to the elections in 2003, the opposition failed to
unite. Were ambitions the reason for this? Will the opposition's being
fragmented intensify the electoral campaign?
A: To be sincere, yes there are some considerations deriving from
individuals ' ambitions. But I think it would not have been correct if
the opposition had united. If they had the intention to unite they
should do it in another way. If I were in the opposition, I would
suggest to do the following: why does it matter to be in one list? Go
for elections under different lists but support each other. What does
it mean to work together? It means to be different but together. While
unification would mean that they all would become the same. It is
impossible to unite people who have different positions, this would be
an artificial unification.
Q: What will be the different of the next parliament from the present
one? A: My considerations presented above do not allow me to say that
the next parliament will be better than this one. One of the
advantages of the new parliament will be that some people from this
parliament might not get into the new parliament. I am sure that the
political arena in the country will change when new people appear on
it. But these should not be arbitrary people. The most useful thing
about the new parliament will be that it will generate the need, the
nostalgia for ideology that I was speaking about. The absurd situation
will get to a point after which the improvement of the political arena
and the society will become an imperative.
By Karine MANGASSARIAN