Endless “revolutions” in Armenia

1988-1994

In 1988, more than 1 million people gathered in the central square of the Soviet-era Yerevan to demand the return of Artsakh to the Armenian SSR. They chanted “Miatsum” (Reunification) and demanded the restoration of historical justice. Only 9 years later, Levon Ter-Petrosyan – the first president of already independent Armenia and one of the leaders of the Artsakh movement, who chanted “Miatsum, Miatsum” on the Yerevan square in 1988 – wrote a program article on the importance of achieving peace with neighbors (Turkey and Azerbaijan) by surrendering the liberated territories. Peace with those who were never ashamed, but openly proud of the 1915 genocide and the elimination of the Armenian population in Nakhijevan, Shusha, Sumgait and Baku. 

End Result

1. Failure to keep hundreds of thousands of Armenians who fled Azerbaijan in Armenia. With statesmanship and strategic vision, these people should have been placed in the liberated Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh Republic). It was clear even then that the key to achieving the desired political outcome in the Artsakh case was an effective demographic strategy (settlement, retention and birthrate). Population – Failure, Retention – Failure, Birthrate – Failure. Economic development – Failure, Reunification of Armenia and Artsakh – Failure.
2. A ceasefire regime instead of an act of surrender and a peace treaty on the winner’s terms. The Armenian side agreed to sign the 1994 Bishkek Protocol on the ceasefire regime, which gave Azerbaijan time to step up and prepare for revenge.

1996

A year before Ter-Petrosyan wrote his article on Artsakh’s surrender, Vazgen Sargsyan, Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan broke the neck of the nascent civil society for the sake of keeping him in office. Let us recall one historical axiom – without the presence of civil society, it is impossible to build a political nation and, consequently, statehood. It was like this. Vazgen Manukyan actually won the 1996 presidential elections, but the power bloc represented by the above-mentioned triumvirate did not accept it and began punishing those who came out on the street to defend their choice. Ironically, only 2 years later they forced Ter-Petrosyan to resign because of his position on Artsakh. Statesmanship and political consistency? You haven’t heard.

End Result

1. Creation of internal feudal power groups. The struggle of these groups for power and influence instead of building a strategy to contain and weaken Azerbaijan, which signed the Oil Contract of the Century in 1994 (the year Armenia agreed to sign the Bishkek Protocol) with 40 corporations and 19 countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, Japan etc.
2. Failure of the process of formation of the institution of national civil society. The consequence – disappointment and emigration of passionaries from the country, creation of a vacuum, which began to be filled by external forces. The emergence and development of the institution of artificial and managed “civil society” in the country.

*********

Since 1999-2008, there have been events that have brought Azerbaijan to a qualitatively different geopolitical position. While the country’s leadership is opening shopping centers, taking pride in Northern Avenue and dancing to the patriotic songs of Dzakh Harut, Baku is building two strategic oil pipelines, integrating itself into the American strategy against terrorism, establishing a dialogue with Israel and forming lobbying networks in Russia, Europe, Asia, and the United States. Armenia and Artsakh are losing population, the balance of strategic perception in international relations is shifting sharply in favor of Azerbaijan. The people are not interested in all these serious processes and therefore this period passes without “revolutions”.

*********

2008-2018

In 2008, a new “revolution” began, led by the once leprous traitor Ter-Petrosyan, who in 1996 was unwilling to accept the choice of his citizens with dignity, forgot about the agreement signed by him on June 14, 1993 on Armenia’s obligation to protect Artsakh with all its might, and in 1997 offered to surrender all the liberated lands. He was declared a traitor and left the President’s post. And this former “traitor” became the only hope for salvation from the “Karabakh clan”. People forgot and disregarded the “political path” of this “savior”, his position on Artsakh and his readiness to dialog with Turkey without preconditions (removing the issue of Genocide from the agenda).

In 2012, Raffi Hovhannisian – son of the American historian Richard Hovhannisian, who has questioned whether Artsakh belongs to Armenia – declares himself the new savior of Armenia. Every day, Hovhannisian leads the population in circles across Yerevan and delivers inspiring speeches in front of Opera Square. The new savior meets with Serzh Sargsyan, where he denies his victory and his victory. “The people have won” – Raffi said, but embodied by whom – he failed not specify. After that, Raffi, together with police chief Vova Gasparyan, makes a march to Tsitsernakaberd to honor the memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide.

End Result

1. Mini civil war on the streets of Yerevan in March 2008, resulting in civilian deaths.
2. Putting the already dependent “elites” in deep dependence on external players in exchange for recognition of their legitimacy.
3. Creation of a legal framework for the penetration of various kinds of non-governmental organizations into Armenia.
4. The release in 2012 by the Hungarian government and the glorification by official Baku of Ramil Safarov, who killed Armenian officer Gurgen Margaryan with an axe at a NATO course in 2004.
5. Azerbaijan’s aggression against Artsakh in April 2016. Refusal of the Armenian leadership to recognize Artsakh’s independence, refusal to conclude a treaty with Artsakh on security guarantees and strategic alliance.
6. Rotation of political figures (Karen Karapetyan’s premiership) to restore the lost rating and erase the substantive agenda.  

2018-present

In the spring of 2018, Nikol Pashinyan – a consistent supporter of Artsakh’s surrender and Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s right-hand man in the 2008 elections – goes to Republic Square shouting “Dukhov” and declares himself Armenia’s new savior. He declares Serzh Sargsyan, who released him from prison and allowed him to enter the parliament, the main enemy of the country and of all Armenians. Karen Karapetyan, Robert Kocharyan and Co. try to use Pashinyan’s movement to overthrow Serzh Sargsyan, who canceled his promise not to go for a new term as prime minister (Karen Karapetyan was supposed to step in). Sargsyan resigned under pressure, Pashinyan eliminated Karapetyan and through blackmail a la “either me or there will be no country” demanded the parliamentary majority, whose legitimacy he did not recognize, to elect him prime minister. After the defeat in the 2020 war and the surrender of Artsakh, the “opposition” acts “bravely” and “decisively”, agreeing to go to the parliamentary elections announced by Pashinyan, to recognize the results of these elections and to be content with the role of extras who legitimized Pashinyan’s rule and decisions by the very fact of being in the National Assembly. 

Intermediate results

1. Pashinyan comes to power and rules on the basis of an authoritarian Constitution, which he has fought against since 2015.
2. The oligarchs and feudal lords, against whom he declared a “crusade”, continue to thrive and flourish, multiplying their capitals and participating in political life through pocket deputies, law enforcers, bureaucrats and the media.
3. The political position is rapidly evolving from “Artsakh is Armenia and that’s it” into “unwavering recognition of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity” and equally stubborn non-recognition of the expelled Artsakh citizens as citizens of Armenia.
4. Artsakh is de-armed, the Armenian population is expelled, graves, monuments, churches and other cultural sites are destroyed, Armenian soldiers, officers and many of Artsakh’s leadership from different periods are held captive in Azerbaijani prison.   
5. The armed forces of Azerbaijan, supported by Turkey, are building fortifications on Armenian territory in preparation for long-term political and economic colonization of Armenia.   
6. The thousand-year history of the Armenian people is outlawed and narrowed down to the history of the modern Third Republic.

Conclusion

There has never been a real national sovereign revolution in Armenia, because revolution is a complex historical process to transform a worn-out system no longer capable of protecting and promoting national interests. Accordingly, the prerequisites for a real revolution are:

✔ Existence of a mature political nation and a meaningful system that has exhausted itself as a form of protecting the interests of this nation and has not found internal forces and resources for transformation from above (self-reforming).

In France, the system of absolute monarchy effectively protected the interests of the country for centuries and was the only true form of value-based, social, political and economic organization of French society. In Armenia, a flawed system was initially formed, protecting the interests of the ruling class to the detriment of the broad national interests. Thus, a real revolution is impossible in Armenia, as there is not even a substantive system that needs to be reformed. In Armenia, there is a question of stage zero – building a nation, a state, and a system. 

✔ The presence of a recognized and authoritative national aristocracy as the bearer of a new system of values. From this aristocracy emerge specific leaders responsible for their “section” of the revolution.

The same French Revolution did not have one name that the rest of us would recognize as a savior. It was a whole aristocracy of educated reformers: Robespierre, Danton, Desmoulins, Marat, Barras and others. And they relied on the works of their great predecessors – Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu.    

✔ Having a comprehensive Doctrine that explains the motives of the revolution, its goals, objectives, and methods of accomplishment.

Even as far back as in 1517, the Reformation in Europe began with Martin Luther nailing his “95 Theses” to the door of Wittenberg Castle Church. And here it was purely a matter of religious revolution. Subsequent revolutions in individual countries always had a clear Doctrine, Manifesto, Pamphlets, etc.