Tweet
SOCIETY HAS NO MODEL OF PRESIDENT
Anahit Yesayan
Hayots Ashkharh Daily, Armenia
Oct 4 2007
Interview with ethnographer Hranoush Kharatyan
"There are already a great number of candidates who have submitted
a claim for presidency. Do you think society has formed an image of
the country's President? That's to say, is it clear what characters
a president should possess and what he is disallowed to do?"
"In my opinion, there is no specific public demand at the present
moment. I even think that there are no clear-cut features as to the
phenomenon of 'President'. To my mind, society mostly discusses the
negative features of the existing candidates. But as to what president
our society will have, it is unclear; there is no such public demand. I
don't mean the political organizations and structures which, by the
way, do not have a clear-cut formulation of the future President's
characters either.
For example, it is not formulated that the President must be the
embodiment of decency, honesty and dignity. These are not secondary
phenomena. There seems to be a desire for a powerful president,
however there is no clear-cut public demand for and idea about the
characters of such a powerful President.
What do they want? A group of people who want certain changes in
their life and another group of people who do not want any changes
at all. Theoretically, the people's expectations from a specific
presidential candidate derive from here. Those who do not favor
changes can formulate their approaches towards the President's
characters in a more clear manner. As to the people desiring changes,
they themselves have no clear idea about the kind of person they want
to see as President. There is no such model in our reality.
People have started to realize the well-known saying that 'X is
a good guy, but it is not yet enough for him to be a good public
figure' ". That's to say, the ideas about a good person vanish very
quickly as a result of the uncertainty about the expectations from
that person. What should they expect of that "good person". On the
one hand, it is possible to understand this, but on the other hand,
it is unclear what they expect of someone who, apart from being a
good person, has a good idea about his job.
For instance, is there a demand for a dignified and honest person?
I am no sure there is such a demand. Who will be the country's future
President? Does our society demand that he have the above-mentioned
characters? I don't think so. I think that the moral characters of
people are among the topics which mostly are not mostly discussed in
our reality. What is discussed is the relationship among different
individuals. In my opinion, there is simply no model of President in
our society."
"The greatest intrigue is attributed to ex-President L. Ter-Perosyan
who has submitted a claim for presidency for the upcoming presidential
elections. He speaks after 10 years of silence.
What new things does he say? What will you generally say in that
regards? What do you think about his possible return?"
"I partially answered this question long ago, and I stick to the same
opinion. To my mind, it is still questionable to what extent L.
Ter-Petrosyan and, in a global sense, the Armenian pan-National
Movement have analyzed the period of their political rule and what
conclusions they have drawn as a result of their analysis. That group
currently criticizes the ruling authorities. And it serves them right
because there are a great number of issues subject to criticism,
and there are issues that remain unsolved despite the fact that it
is possible to solve them.
On the other hand, however, there is the following question/ To
what extent did the group of political co-thinkers present the
activities of the ruling period with all the consequences deriving
thereof? Personally I find that it was the ex-Government that lay the
foundation of all the flaws which later received deeper manifestations
in the country. And the norms of behavior, which perhaps became more
outstanding later, developed at that time. All these are materials
subject to analysis, and I believe that this group of political
co-thinkers has its own analysis.
Anahit Yesayan
Hayots Ashkharh Daily, Armenia
Oct 4 2007
Interview with ethnographer Hranoush Kharatyan
"There are already a great number of candidates who have submitted
a claim for presidency. Do you think society has formed an image of
the country's President? That's to say, is it clear what characters
a president should possess and what he is disallowed to do?"
"In my opinion, there is no specific public demand at the present
moment. I even think that there are no clear-cut features as to the
phenomenon of 'President'. To my mind, society mostly discusses the
negative features of the existing candidates. But as to what president
our society will have, it is unclear; there is no such public demand. I
don't mean the political organizations and structures which, by the
way, do not have a clear-cut formulation of the future President's
characters either.
For example, it is not formulated that the President must be the
embodiment of decency, honesty and dignity. These are not secondary
phenomena. There seems to be a desire for a powerful president,
however there is no clear-cut public demand for and idea about the
characters of such a powerful President.
What do they want? A group of people who want certain changes in
their life and another group of people who do not want any changes
at all. Theoretically, the people's expectations from a specific
presidential candidate derive from here. Those who do not favor
changes can formulate their approaches towards the President's
characters in a more clear manner. As to the people desiring changes,
they themselves have no clear idea about the kind of person they want
to see as President. There is no such model in our reality.
People have started to realize the well-known saying that 'X is
a good guy, but it is not yet enough for him to be a good public
figure' ". That's to say, the ideas about a good person vanish very
quickly as a result of the uncertainty about the expectations from
that person. What should they expect of that "good person". On the
one hand, it is possible to understand this, but on the other hand,
it is unclear what they expect of someone who, apart from being a
good person, has a good idea about his job.
For instance, is there a demand for a dignified and honest person?
I am no sure there is such a demand. Who will be the country's future
President? Does our society demand that he have the above-mentioned
characters? I don't think so. I think that the moral characters of
people are among the topics which mostly are not mostly discussed in
our reality. What is discussed is the relationship among different
individuals. In my opinion, there is simply no model of President in
our society."
"The greatest intrigue is attributed to ex-President L. Ter-Perosyan
who has submitted a claim for presidency for the upcoming presidential
elections. He speaks after 10 years of silence.
What new things does he say? What will you generally say in that
regards? What do you think about his possible return?"
"I partially answered this question long ago, and I stick to the same
opinion. To my mind, it is still questionable to what extent L.
Ter-Petrosyan and, in a global sense, the Armenian pan-National
Movement have analyzed the period of their political rule and what
conclusions they have drawn as a result of their analysis. That group
currently criticizes the ruling authorities. And it serves them right
because there are a great number of issues subject to criticism,
and there are issues that remain unsolved despite the fact that it
is possible to solve them.
On the other hand, however, there is the following question/ To
what extent did the group of political co-thinkers present the
activities of the ruling period with all the consequences deriving
thereof? Personally I find that it was the ex-Government that lay the
foundation of all the flaws which later received deeper manifestations
in the country. And the norms of behavior, which perhaps became more
outstanding later, developed at that time. All these are materials
subject to analysis, and I believe that this group of political
co-thinkers has its own analysis.