Tweet
POLITICS, STATE, MEDIA, SOCIETY: LINES WHICH NEVER CROSS
Naira Hayrumyan
KarabakhOpen
26-10-2007 17:35:28
The pre-election situation in Armenia revealed plain
disproportion. Perhaps the most disproportionate are the relations
between the political processes, the media and the public opinion.
Classically, a democracy is a government based on the opinion of
the majority of the population. In an ideal democratic state its
reflection in the media should be adequate to the public opinion.
In Armenia, it is not. Firstly, the political ideology. Obviously,
the objectives of every political party should include security,
welfare and human rights. What other objectives the parties may
have? Logically, the differences between parties are not in the
ultimate goal but the ways of achieving it.
In countries which have passed a definite democratic way the political
struggle has transformed into a competition of two major political
ideologies - conservatism and liberalism. In other words, in these
countries two ways are proposed to guarantee the security of people:
liberals focus on a separate person, while conservatives imagine
it through preserving such social institutions like the family, the
nation, the religion, the state. Political struggle is around these
two ideologies, independent from who their leaders are.
Now let us return to Armenia. If we try to find out how many citizens
in Armenia are aware of the political views of one party leader or
another, it will become known that people are not aware of what each
of them proposes.
Political struggle is among separate people who have nothing to do
with public opinion and interests. And it is becoming evident that
politics in Armenia is not determined by public opinion.
It is reflected in the Armenian media. As one turns over the pages of
print media and watches a TV channel or another, one can see the same
persons, and the same events with highly similar interpretation. The
impression is that the activities of the media are shaped by marginal
politicians rather than public opinion. Common people are not seen in
the media. And even if someone asks for the opinion of common people,
the aim is always political. For instance, the news program of the
Public Television of Armenia interviewed two women in the street who
criticized the return of Levon Ter-Petrosyan.
The reason is perhaps that public opinion has not been shaped,
organized and is not resistant. People are even reluctant to have a
public opinion because they have become convinced through these years
that public opinion has nothing to do with politics. People are used
to viewing state, politics, media and society on parallel lines which
never cross. And it shows how far our society is from democracy.
Naira Hayrumyan
KarabakhOpen
26-10-2007 17:35:28
The pre-election situation in Armenia revealed plain
disproportion. Perhaps the most disproportionate are the relations
between the political processes, the media and the public opinion.
Classically, a democracy is a government based on the opinion of
the majority of the population. In an ideal democratic state its
reflection in the media should be adequate to the public opinion.
In Armenia, it is not. Firstly, the political ideology. Obviously,
the objectives of every political party should include security,
welfare and human rights. What other objectives the parties may
have? Logically, the differences between parties are not in the
ultimate goal but the ways of achieving it.
In countries which have passed a definite democratic way the political
struggle has transformed into a competition of two major political
ideologies - conservatism and liberalism. In other words, in these
countries two ways are proposed to guarantee the security of people:
liberals focus on a separate person, while conservatives imagine
it through preserving such social institutions like the family, the
nation, the religion, the state. Political struggle is around these
two ideologies, independent from who their leaders are.
Now let us return to Armenia. If we try to find out how many citizens
in Armenia are aware of the political views of one party leader or
another, it will become known that people are not aware of what each
of them proposes.
Political struggle is among separate people who have nothing to do
with public opinion and interests. And it is becoming evident that
politics in Armenia is not determined by public opinion.
It is reflected in the Armenian media. As one turns over the pages of
print media and watches a TV channel or another, one can see the same
persons, and the same events with highly similar interpretation. The
impression is that the activities of the media are shaped by marginal
politicians rather than public opinion. Common people are not seen in
the media. And even if someone asks for the opinion of common people,
the aim is always political. For instance, the news program of the
Public Television of Armenia interviewed two women in the street who
criticized the return of Levon Ter-Petrosyan.
The reason is perhaps that public opinion has not been shaped,
organized and is not resistant. People are even reluctant to have a
public opinion because they have become convinced through these years
that public opinion has nothing to do with politics. People are used
to viewing state, politics, media and society on parallel lines which
never cross. And it shows how far our society is from democracy.