Houry Mayissian
As we make our plans and commit to new resolutions for 2013, at least
for some of our compatriots in Armenia new plans will unfortunately
mean immigrating to new countries. More than 20 years after
independence, outward migration remains the “answer” to the poverty and
socio-economic issues affecting many in Armenia today.
Internally, the ongoing wave of emigration is continuing to deprive
Armenia of citizens who may otherwise play a critical role in
state-building and socio-economic advancement. As a developing country,
Armenia faces many challenges—from establishing democratic state
institutions that are able to deliver for its citizens, to driving
economic growth and upping the standards of healthcare, education, and
other areas of human development. These much-needed reforms can only be
brought by people—be they intellectuals, professionals, businessmen,
laborers, or artists—people who are choosing to leave the country
instead.
Emigration also compounds the country’s already challenging
demographic situation. Standing at 1.7 children per woman, Armenia’s low
fertility rates are well below the minimal 2.1 births required for the
population’s reproduction. Armenia is also an aging society, with those
60 or over (14.6 percent of the current population) exceeding the 12
percent indicator for an aged population. When viewed within this
overall context, the serious threats of large-scale emigration on the
country’s future population become even more emphasized.
Emigration has societal consequences as well. It is not surprising
that in August 2011, the BBC ran a story on Armenia’s “villages of women
left behind.” The women of Dzoragyugh interviewed for the article were
more concerned about losing their husbands to other women and new
families in far-away Russia than working the fields.
Armenia’s “emptying” villages have also been noticed by our watchful
neighbors across the border. “Our economy is growing, while theirs is
actually paralyzed. Our population is increasing, while they are facing a
demographic catastrophe, there is zero natural growth and mass
emigration,” Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said in a speech in
October 2012, according to the Lragir news agency. He also called on the
people of Azerbaijan to wait until Armenia is “totally empty” to take
over not only Nagorno-Karabagh, but also the country as a whole.
Aliyev is famous for his bellicose statements. We can argue that they
are for internal consumption. We can dismiss them as the desperate
shenanigans of a party defeated in war. We can even feel bolstered by
the strength of the Armenian Army and assurances that Armenia can win
another war against Azerbaijan if it had to—at least for now.
However, we know that a peaceful resolution of the Karabagh conflict
is not on the horizon. We also know that meanwhile Azerbaijan is pumping
oil money into its army. According to the International Crisis Group,
Azerbaijan’s military spending has increased 20-fold during Aliyev’s
presidency to a mighty $4.4 billion in 2012, a figure that exceeds the
entire state budget of Armenia. It may not be the case now, but
continued large-scale emigration from Armenia may lead to challenges in
maintaining a strong army in the future.
Despite the seriousness of the problem, the Armenian government has
so far lacked the political will to adequately address the issue of
emigration. Government action has been rare and tended to focus on half
measures to forcefully curb emigration, rather than policies that
provide a long-term solution.
Such was the case when Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan took aim at
Russia’s “Compatriots” program, which assists voluntary immigration to
Russia’s sparsely populated areas. “The organization of such activities
in the Republic of Armenia is unacceptable,” Sargsyan said in October
2012, in a failed attempt to stop the program from running in Armenia.
It didn’t take long for the Russian ambassador in Yerevan to remind
Sargysan that “no one makes Armenians go to Russia” and that “people
leave Armenia because they have certain objective reasons.”
Regardless of the impact such programs might have, the most effective
way to fight against emigration is to abolish the reasons people want
to leave in the first place. For Armenia, first and foremost, this means
creating jobs, developing a more favorable business environment, and
encouraging small and medium businesses. It also means curbing
corruption, working towards an egalitarian society, and safeguarding the
basic rights of citizens.
Armenia’s ruling parties must recognize that their policies are
directly responsible for emigration and must immediately start stemming
its tide. With the presidential elections fast approaching, the incoming
government must turn its attention to the “silent” threat of emigration
and devise policies that address poverty, unemployment, inequality, and
corruption. Steps must also be taken to encourage and facilitate the
return of former emigrants and diasporans to their homeland.
Unfortunately, President Serge Sarkisian’s presidential nomination
acceptance speech in December provides no reason to hope for meaningful
change on this front, in the case of his re-election. Sarkisian made no
references to emigration except for vague promises of shaping a country
that will be “competitive enough to ensure sufficient prosperity to its
own citizens, render void any desire to earn a living abroad, and able
to summon its children back in a dignified manner—to return to a
thriving Armenia.”
In the absence of effective government policies to reverse the flow
of emigration, we in the diaspora also have a role to play. We must
constantly raise the issue and remind those in power in Armenia—through
our media, during community visits and interactions with Armenian
officials—of the seriousness of the situation. We must demand
explanation. We must challenge the government to take action. As a
nation we can no longer afford to stay indifferent to this “silent”
threat to the security and prosperity of our homeland.
"The Armenian Weekly," January 3, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment