Epress.am News from Armenia
The definition of a revolutionary situation and the likelihood and desirability of a “revolutionary wave” in Armenia were the key issues discussed at Saturday’s meeting of the Small Council.
The Small Council is a local sociopolitical group that, through intensive discussions on a wide variety of topics, intends to create ideological, cultural, political and civil approaches to current, post-industrial society. The group currently operates as part of the opposition bloc the Armenian National Congress.
At Saturday’s meeting, artist Karen Andreasyan presented philosopher Georges Sorel’s theory of revolutionary violence, highlighting two themes: revolutionary violence is not likened to bloodshed and terror, but rather is reflected in violence against institutions that have lost their legitimacy, and secondly, the “revolutionary myth” and a system of vision for the future are necessary for revolution.
Artist and art curator Nazaret Karoyan, in turn, noted that society (the masses) has the potential for revolutionary creation, and the role of political leadership is not to smooth, shape and eventually prevent this work, but to follow it in its strategy and to achieve and form political ideas from living revolutionary signals.
According to publicist Ara Nedolyan, not only revolutionary commitment and people’s creativity (basing it on the scenes he saw on Mar. 1, 2008; that is, the forceful dispersal of peaceful demonstrations following contested presidential elections that left 10 people dead), but also Armenian National Congress (HAK) leader Levon Ter-Petrossian’s capacity is necessary to raise the wave of revolution; in politician Ashot Manucharyan’s words, “to unite the Square.” Nedolyan supposed that that period of “unification” (from HAK’s leadership) will be chosen according to a new revolutionary myth and maturity of a generalized vision: if on Mar. 1 there was the danger that by creating revolution, Armenia will be alone in an anti-revolutionary region, then recent events in the Middle East give hope to expect a wave of revolution to hit Russia, Azerbaijan and Iran, which will eliminate the concerns with regard to security and will provide an intuitive, clear vision for the future in the wider population.
Political analyst Edgar Vardanyan and publicist Lala Poghosyan noted that they prefer the establishment of a reasonable, transparent agreement in society: an “agreement,” according to Vardanyan; a “network,” according to Poghosyan.
The other participants in the debate, however, said what is necessary in the case of a revolution is very broad and more intuitive than the development of a rational agreement or myth or revolutionary wave, based on which only the forming of public rationalization, a stable contract or network in the future will be effective.
HAK member, Levon Ter-Petrossian’s press spokesperson Arman Musinyan assured those present that HAK has a working strategy to achieve a change in regime, and it will be employed, taking into account all the circumstances of the situation, and ongoing and expectant developments in internal and external aspects.
The Small Council decided to continue discussing the nature of revolution and the characteristics of a revolutionary situation at its next gathering.
Original Armenian text by Ara Nedolyan.