Karen Nahapetyan

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
02 Sep 2008

Many of us have most probably noticed that the moving force of the
native liberation movement is far not Armenian Pan National Movement,
or "Hanrapetutyun" or the People's Party of Armenia, but rather the
non-governmental organizations, the so-called public organizations. It
is by the help of the before mentioned organizations that all the
protest functions are usually organized.

It is one of the modern revolutionary technologies. The experience
of the recent years has displayed the privileges of the public
organizations over the classical political parties. Flexibility,
destabilization, activities of various directions, high level of
dynamism and many other peculiarities of those organizations make
the counteraction of the law enforcers and the public services rather

There are lots of social-political organizations in our reality. They
are civil-public institutions, structures of the self-organization
of the citizens in different spheres of life and activity.

Meanwhile, there are many other public organizations, which are engaged
exclusively in political activity, moreover, it is for that very
purpose that they are established, by the help of foreign grants. And
this evidently goes beyond the frameworks of the civil society.

In our view it is high time to give assessment to the activity of
the =0 D so-called civil institutions with political trend, which
completely changes the concept of the civil society.

Today the difference between the civil public organizations and the
political processes is intentionally eradicated; this should have long
ago become a matter of analyses. Whereas the public organizations
usually appear with the role of a judge that can take decisions
regarding the political organization of society and the activity of
the state institutions.

But if the parties - the classical participants of the political
processes have to regularly prove their own authority, by their
participation during the elections and show the level of the public
support by the votes gained (that is to say their right to introduce
their ideas to the society), then the public organizations engaged
in politics think they don't have to prove their right to give
lessons on politics. They simply have a claim on the position of the
prosecutor. Do they have the right?

The funding and the establishment of similar public organizations
is the component of the organization of any colored revolution. For
example before "the revolution of tulips" in Kirgizistan, around 5-8
thousand similar organizations were established in this country by
foreign grants. By the number of the public organizations Kigizistan
was a champion in CIS. It was really ridiculous; almost each village
had its own public organization.

By establishing the se organizations the foreign funds were trying
to emphasize their importance. Should we mention that by increasing
the number of the public organizations they were far not trying to
establish civil society and democracy in this country?

Though how can we even speak about democracy? Democracy, in the 21st
century, has become a matter of political blackmail, interference in
the internal affairs of sovereign states and false speculations. It
has become a tool by the help of which they realize all the before
mentioned, in which the public organizations established by the
foreign grants serve as a moving force.

At the end we must underscore that the era of new colored revolutions
continue in the post-soviet countries. Of course they fail more and
more, because people are no more optimistic towards them. Our neighbor
Georgia is a bright example of what has been said.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress