The establishment of peoples’ sovereignty and power over the state has become the core indicator in the length of nation-state building in Europe and throughout the world. Since the very launch of the concept with Westphalian system of international relations taking its roots in some anti-absolutist revolutions in Europe, most European nations have taken up measures to fulfill this informal obligation to be considered a dignified member of international community. Indeed, the idea and perceptions on the national dignity are first of all linked to the ability of the nation to decide its own path. While some states being formally accepted as full actors of international relations, for instance becoming members of United Nations organization, they still lack the fulfillment of the original informal precondition to declare the scopes of their national dignity. Worth to mention, that the latter is nothing else but the equilibrium of individual, human dignities.
Because we can, author: Ben Matthews, source: Flickr
In these December of 2013, with the death of Nelson Mandela, when the peoples of the world were once again reflecting on their own destiny and covered path, another yet small and modest initiative – the so-called Civil Contract (also translated as Civil Pact/Civil Agreement) – launched in Armenia. In the atmosphere of flourishing clientelistic parties and declarative, yet hollow, nature of contemporary Armenian politics, the event has scarcely been perceived as something outstanding or worth reckoning with in the minds of European and international observers. Also, strongly influenced by unexpected foreign policy, most notably the Armenian u-turn towards Customs Union, Armenians now face the danger of losing its weak, but still existing image of a truly independent nation. Therefore, the international indifference towards the destinies of Armenian people may in the nearest future be also indicated with much lower requirements in terms of its democratic development.
“Armenians now face the danger of losing its weak, but still existing image of a truly independent nation”
However, fortunately Armenia more than some other post-Soviet states possesses a certain historical baggage of elements of true nation building. The small landlocked Republic of Armenia, with the ethnic Armenians as a majority of its population, worthily carries the legacy of ancient Armenian identity. In the meanwhile, the first republic of Armenia existed in the years 1918-1920, ending its existence with “Sovietization” (Armenians unlike Georgians or Baltic States do not name “Soviet Occupation”). Since 1988, parallel to the Soviet Perestroika, the Armenian Allnational Movement (sometimes referred as Pan-Armenian National Movement which is not a correct translation) has been delegated as the representative of Armenian people in their search for solutions of some national issues, and later – for the pursuit for independence. While in its early period the country had been considered as a regional locomotive for democratic values and economic liberalization, later the power was overtaken by conservative reactionary elites, which therefore based their power on oligarchy and post-war military.
This period beginning with the surrender of power by the 1st president Levon Ter-Petrosyan (Sometimes translated into English in the Western Armenian tradition – Levon Ter-Petrossian) and a terrorist attack on the Armenian National Assembly (Official name for parliament) is often called as a loose of constitutional order. Thus, within the Armenian public discourse the need for “reestablishment of the constitutional order” emerged, however some would change the first word with “establishment”, claiming that the early ages were non-democratic as well. Anyway, these locally popular terms resemble to a large degree the previously discussed concept of sovereignty of people over the state.
By the time of 2008 Presidential elections, semi-criminal business tycoons had already became a strong pillar of the existing regime. The emergence of another national movement was then unable to break the state-business linkage, and it all, as well as individual uncompromising choices of the state leaders, resulted in 10 killings and mass injuries during the dispersion of post-election protests. The over mentioned league of opposition parties and groups, supported by vast part of the population, had been consolidated over the candidacy of the 1st president and lead by some other early years’ elites. It was later named Armenian National Congress (ANC), referring to the Indian and African analogues and stressing the priority of non-violent struggle against the regime.
At the same time, in the length of last several years smaller nonpartisan civil initiatives and individual public figures emerged and gained a rather considerable cumulative public support. Another remarkable process is the comparatively more free level of media broadcast, which partly owes its emergence to the spread of internet coverage and alternative media platforms (as well as citizen journalism) and partly to the split within the competing ruling elites. It is worth to note, that the activities of Armenian National Congress and other loyal groups have made a key contribution to keep the country away from more authoritarian conservative consolidation. By now, however, ANC has lost many of its leaders and much of public support due to numerous reasons, which seem to ground mainly on internal competition among leaders and lack of democratic procedures in decision-making.
“The civil activism and performance of some individual oppositionists has become the core interest of Armenian public”
Thus, currently the existing groups and individual actors non-loyal to the present regime of Republican Party, as well as wider public also unwilling to associate themselves with artificial clientelistic political parties (calling themselves “alternative”, not opposition) and disappointed in (by!) others have come to a point of ultimate apathy and resentment towards parties and the whole traditional political culture itself.
The timeframe of this latter period in the contemporary history of Armenia may be defined since last parliamentary and presidential elections of 2012 and 2013 respectively until now. The civil activism and performance of some individual oppositionists has become the core interest of Armenian public, while political parties have lost their face and currently mainly cause negative feelings and indifference. The most remarkable person among these individual actors is one of former ANC leaders, who was also active during 2013 post-election uprising and throughout these years.
Nikol Pashinyan is the one who is considered the initiator of the recently declared Civil Contract initiative. Once expelled from university this young orphan later became the chief editor of the most popular printed newspaper in the country. His civil and political activity could be observed even before the 2007-2008 uprising. He is the one who besides average opposition activity often claims the necessity for recovering the constitutional order in the country and directly stresses the current dangers for the national sovereignty. The life of Pashinyan, currently a member of parliament, is a rare and outstanding success story of an Armenian citizen who never complied with the regime’s game rules. Not so much as Mandela did, he nevertheless spent a year in prison never regretting for his rebelliousness. Unlike another intelligent political leader Ter-Petrosyan, Pashinyan’s rhetoric is much more narrowed to separate niche topics. It targets the most vulnerable sides of the current political regime. He is perceived as a taboo-breaker, with his undisguised opinions about the de facto head of state Serzh Sargsyan and his close people, also criticizing such events as illegal activities of Russian KGB on the Armenian territory. The phenomenon of Pashinyan would not be so noteworthy, if there was at least one other person who could be compared with him based on personal political success and special popularity among younger generation.
The idea of Civil Contract, largely advocated and most possibly developed by him, is a new attempt of public consolidation around the simple endeavor shared by the majority – recover of the nation’s dignity, making Armenian nation sovereign again, making the constitution – and not informal practices and hard power – the main and only game rule. However, a distinguishing feature of this new actor in the Armenian political arena is its main stress on a new agenda of the basic principles of party management. The introduction of new political culture of participation has truly become the central public demand from the opposition, and in this scope, the Civil Contract yet seems to be one of the most promising newcomer, that the nation has so far faced.
