Patrick Azadian
Years ago, a relative of my maternal
grandmother paid us a visit in the United States from Soviet Armenia.
Like a smug Diasporan, I planted an Armenian tri-color on top of our
late seventies Zenith television monitor and set the stage to ask my
burning question.
“When will Karabakh be re-united with Armenia?” I finally asked.
“Of course not.” I replied. But I was already disarmed and meekly awaited his follow up comment.
“Well,” he continued, “right now, we are
not in a position to lift ‘our truck.’ But when the time comes, when the
opportunity is right, we will try.” My relative had gently put me in my
place. The opportunity finally arrived and true to his word, the people
of Armenia and Karabakh not only tried but also proved that they could
dictate change and address past injustices. The Karabakh movement was
supported by many layers of the Armenian society and reached it climax
of sacrifice during the war of self-determination. Against the odds,
this grassroots movement was able to achieve what seemed improbable not
only to many Armenians but also the international community.
Patrick Azadian
In the Diaspora, a different kind of a
movement took shape in the sixties. The movement for the recognition of
Armenian Genocide challenged the Turkish state’s systematic attempts to
re-write history. Many activists joined forces and dedicated themselves
to push back revisionist policies and registered successes against an
adversary that not only enjoyed significant resources but was also
supported by powerful allies. While some may question the level of
success achieved by this movement, it cannot be denied that communities
were mobilized, some young men and women dedicated and sacrificed their
lives for a cause, and in the process, the historical significance of
the Armenian Genocide remained relevant decades after the attempted
annihilation of the Armenian people.
With the exception of the Karabakh and
the Genocide recognition movements, however, recent Armenian history is
void of successful models for change. It’s not a secret that Armenian
society suffers from a slew of socio-economic injustices and political
dysfunctions; inequality and poverty are certainly rife in Armenia. Why
then, has a nation that has displayed such resilience and has produced
many humble activists and soldiers, within Armenia and without, is not
able to mobilize and rid itself of internal oppression, old dependencies,
poverty and injustice? Is the depopulation of today’s Armenian villages
less painful than the ones our grandparents left behind? Are poverty
and mass migration lesser evils than forced deportations? Or, is it that
injustices delivered by our own kind are more tolerable than those
committed by foreign legions?
A lot has been written and debated about
the necessity of change in Armenia. Private conversations, social media
exchanges, as well as dialogue in the media about change often focus on a
process either through the elections or a forced relinquishment of
power by the current leadership. Parallel to this desire for change from
the top, many also hold the belief that the nation needs a dynamic,
resolute, strong, charismatic and patriotic leader to chaperon them to a
bright future. While the change in leadership can certainly be a
critical step toward progress and an important piece of the puzzle, the
lack of substantive conversations and strategy surrounding creating
societal structures and supporting the fledging movements that champion
change is not only curious but also alarming. In Armenia and the
Diaspora, not much significance and organized effort is placed on
nurturing civil society movements, building a culture of democracy,
organizing grassroots initiatives, supporting human rights
organizations, creating an aggressive labor movement, employing defiant
and persistent civil disobedience action and exploring creative avenues
for economic. Moreover, while there is a
consensus on the need for a genuine strategic partnership with the
Russia to safeguard of Armenia’s borders, there is a lack of serious
inventiveness to balance this strategic alliance with diversified
economic initiatives as well as political engagement on the global
stage. In the absence of a robust grassroots
movement that includes the Diaspora, symbolic statements and an
exclusively top down approach to change may only usher cosmetic
improvements and leave the Armenian society suffering from the same
inequalities that it faces today.
Perhaps the root of this
double-edged cult of personality, and this wish for the arrival of a
messiah(s) is a vestige of the Soviet authoritarian culture, our ‘Middle
Eastern experience’ or in part, it’s a natural manifestation of the
lack of successful models for change in our modern history. It can also
simply be a product of the existing despair among large segments of the
population or the absence of a sizeable and enlightened middle class
that can afford the time and energy to organize and drive reform. The
toothlessness of political parties that can serve as agents for change
and challenge the ruling pseudo-elite may also be a contributing factor
to the void of momentum for change. In Armenia, political parties have
been established in order to usher change from above; thus far, they
have been unable or unwilling to engage in grassroots organization of
the populace and have failed to create a viable progressive movement. They lack the muscle or the pedigree to successfully challenge the ruling class.
In the Diaspora, the terms such as ‘corruption’ and ‘oligarchy’ are
favorite buzzwords for casual conversations without much energy invested
in how movements and structures that exist and champion change, many of
which are in their infancy, can be nurtured and supported. In the
Diaspora, we are, more or less, still busy with activities that date
back to pre-independence and post-Genocide. Perhaps, there is a
consensus on the desire to reach the land of milk and honey, we
intuitively or theoretically understand the importance of Armenia’s
survival as a vibrant state, but our path of realizing national
aspirations is clouded in doubt, misinformation and a disjoined effort.
Many of us have a vision of what we want
Armenia to become; there is a wish list. It’s a society where human
rights are respected; the arts, culture, industry and the sciences are
alive and evolving; there is equality of opportunity to achieve material
wealth and prosperity; the educational system is robust; the citizen
have access to a quality healthcare system; democratic institutions are
grounded; borders are safe; and poverty and other societal ills have
been addressed. This is a society where citizens have the opportunity to
fulfill his/her potential and Armenia has found a dignified place in
the family of nations. This is also an Armenia
that recognizes the necessity of Russia as a strategic ally but has also
sought and succeeded in diversifying the field of economic partnerships
on the global stage. It’s an Armenia where the political culture is not
a mimicked version of authoritarian models in the post-Soviet realm and
democratic principles and processes are not just a mandate of cult
personalities but are engrained in the psyche of the populace. This is an Armenia that has engaged the full potential of the Diaspora and has utilized this resultant inertia to enhance her independence in spite of her geopolitical realities. Given
the size and the potential of Armenia’s population and the resources of
the Diaspora, these aspirations are not utopic, or at least, getting on
the right path to reach these objectives is not just a fantasy.
Neither the energy of the Kabarakh
movement nor the activism achieved in the Diaspora for the recognition
of the Armenian Genocide have been replicated in pursuit of social,
political and economic justice for Armenian society. In
some cases, we are even cynical and dismissive of the fledging civic,
political, human rights and environmental movements in Armenia. Granted,
the landscape of progress and change is not deserted, but there is a
void of organized movements that have a clear vision of what they aim to
achieve. There are individuals and organizations that are dedicated to
the betterment of Armenian society but the size of the task is not
matched with the overall effort. There are no pan-Armenian movements to
defend the rights of workers or women, for example, and there is an
absence of national initiatives to improve economic conditions and break
the cycle of poverty.
The puzzle of this void is neither
complicated nor sentimental; we just don’t know how to get to where we
want to be. Perhaps we don’t have successful models for political and
socio-economic progress. Maybe we are experts in building diaspora
communities but nation-building is not our cup of tea; or at least, not
yet. After all, without an independent state, we have not been fully in
charge of our own destiny for centuries and
perhaps, as a result, the dominant Armenian political minds are unable
to explore possibilities beyond unrestricted dependency.
Admitting that we don’t have all the solutions is not a crime. Laws are
written and constitutions are drafted, yet without the vigilant
participation of the public and the full engagement of the Diaspora,
progress either cannot be achieved or it may come too late and too
little.
One look at where America was a century
ago and where is it today tells a good story of how change was achieved.
Without the civil rights movement, America would not be the society
that it is today. Without a labor movement to improve working conditions
and bring about an eight-hour day, big businesses would not voluntarily
relinquish their advantage. Anti-discrimination laws are also a product
of struggle and sacrifice. Without a movement to defend the rights of
children and women, domestic violence laws would not have come into
affect. In many of the societies that certain standards are now taken
for granted, change was not always sponsored or supported by the state. So,
why then should we expect that all these achievements and reforms
should magically appear in Armenian society? Just because we deserve
them, or we are an ancient nation, or that’s how it is in Sweden or
Denmark? Perhaps we know how to challenge a foreign adversary but we are
not so adept at organizing and supporting movements that can bring
progressive change to our impoverished homeland.
There are many models to achieve change
and vibrancy, some more successful than others. Yet, it is not
state-sponsored laws, perfectly worded constitutions or a group of
well-spoken politicians that bring lasting change to a society. It is
the process of change, the struggle for progress, not being afraid of
making mistakes (not to be confused with adventurism), a militancy in character that bring about new laws, an ability to free the political mind from a culture of dependency (not to be confused with rejection of interdependency),
that transform societies and make them more just and allow the citizens
of a nation to express themselves freely and reach their potential. It
is those grassroots movements, mini-revolutions, small but critical
steps toward progress that change societies. In the process, societies
become more adept to embracing new ideas, they gains confidence, become
more enlightened and genuine leaders and movements that can impose
change are born. As long as Armenia suffers from the burden of poverty
and inequality, those who have the means will influence elections,
shamelessly extract what they want from the system and will have the resources to gradually forfeit Armenia’s independence in exchange for staying in power.
The time has arrived and independence (albeit relative and limited) is
the opportunity many of us had been waiting for. It’s time to lift ‘our
truck’ by engaging in change, supporting the fledging movements and
organizations that exist in Armenia, building a pan-Armenian strategy
for progress and challenge the state sponsored injustices. The
alternative is our current reality.
"Asbarez," September 21, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment