Razmig Shirinian
In a recent summit of Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC),
Armenia’s Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian advised the member
countries not to politicize the organization by discussing the Karabagh
war as leverage in economic relations. In the midst of poverty, two sons
of Armenia’s Finance Minister bought an $11 million mansion in
Westwood, CA. (*) These and similar diplomatic and economic incidents would
provide an opportunity to reflect on the current Armenian political
predicament.
A general reflection on current events would indeed suggest that our
politics is not about BSEC negotiations, it is not about what Nalbandian
announces at an international summit, it is not about Sarkissian-Aliev
meetings, it is not what Putin discusses with Erdogan. Apart from these
diplomatic efforts, our politics is all about roads, bathrooms, rest
areas, livable wages, adequate houses, labor and production in the
country. Politics, in other words, is about the infrastructural elements
of development. The violence erupted early in April in Karabagh has
indicated that people will not leave the country because of war, but
will emigrate primarily because of underdeveloped conditions of the key
infrastructural fundamentals.
About 100 years ago we lost Kars, Gaghzvan and other Armenian
territories not because the enemy was stronger, but because we failed to
build our infrastructure and did not stand firm on our politics and on
the developmental needs of the country.
Today, Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora, despite the deep rooted
variations in their political socialization, have yet to cohere as a
strong, institutionalized, and developing national and state entity.
Notably, this has been largely due to the role played by the oligarchic
powers that have manipulated the political orientation of the
liberalized national system in favor of their own vested interests.
As a number of investigative reporters have pointed out (read
hetq.am, for example), oligarchic control has been maintained and has
shown no inclination to internal reform and political socialization. In
spite of many transformations, the country remains far from being able
to crystallize into an internally dynamic and cohesive entity, or stand
as a politically institutionalized and developing country.
What Armenia’s independence has taught us is that development of the
country would be the founding political discourse that will allow the
country to establish its identity as a state and sustain itself. The
perennial developmental concepts, such as participation, transportation,
communication, production, and equitable distribution of the wealth
have often sparked some political discourse and activism, however,
setting the foundation for political institutionalization and
infrastructural development have largely been neglected.
Like many developing countries, Armenia’s economic growth has not
been matched by development of its infrastructure or by institutional
competence of its governance structure. Armenia’s growth story has yet
to translate into a functioning democracy, often envisioned and
expressed by the country’s large number of NGOs and civil society
groups. This certainly has caused great social and political stress that
Armenia has to contend with, even more now (after the early April
clashed with Azerbaijan) than the 25 years of independence. What seems
to be a primary concern for the people at the present juncture is the
increased prospect of development, or governance in which the state,
more than civil society groups and activists, will have to play a
decisive role in the politics of development informed by common values
and not vested oligarchic interests.
Moreover, like other developing countries Armenia’s stability also
seems to be largely influenced by its socio-economic development. This
would require major structural reforms to use the benefits derived from
economic growth to eliminate poverty, improve educational, social, and
health services and reverse the trend of the country’s diminishing
population.
Notably, Armenia has a long tradition of excellence in education,
scientific and technical development. The country has established
various types of science and technology (S&T) institutions
reminiscent to developing economies. However, these institutions are
also struggling with inadequate financial resources and with little
evidence of impact they are making on reduction of unemployment as well
as on promotion of human rights and democracy. The academic institutions
and the S&T tradition in Armenia have yet to correlate education
with important national objectives such as poverty reduction, social
services, public exploitation of the natural resources, and the
country’s development strategy in general.
For a small and landlocked country like Armenia, public and
development policies seem to be highly contingent upon an inward-looking
strategy to be built on infrastructural elements of development.
Armenia has no significant influence in diplomatic relations, but it has
leverage in internal reform and political development. A well-designed
development strategy can create limitless opportunities.
"Asbarez," July 11, 2016
--------------------------------
(*) According to RFE/RL, Prosecutor-General Gevorg Kostanian has asked Armenia’s National Security Service (NSS) to look into the media report by Hetq that exposed the existence of this house at 355 South Mapleton Drive, Los Angeles. Hetq.am revealed last week that Finance Minister Gagik Khachatrian’s sons, Gurgen and
Artyom, bought the house for
$11 million in 2010 and are now selling it for $35 million.
Khachatrian did not deny the information in a written comment to
RFE/RL’s Armenian service on July 6. He said that his sons do
business “on their own” and that he will not comment on details of their
operations.
Khachatrian ran the State Revenue
Committee (SRC), the national tax and customs service, for almost eight
years, until it was separated from the Armenian Finance Ministry in
March. He reputedly controls a host of lucrative businesses,
including a major Internet, cable TV and mobile phone service provider, but has repeatedly denied owning them ("Armeniaca").
No comments:
Post a Comment