The great minds of their age, Ptolemy and Nicolaus Copernicus, first used the word “revolution” to refer to the cyclical movement of stars, planets and satellites. This is of a deep symbolic and meaningful character, since political revolution, like any other in living nature, has a cosmological significance based on the logic of renewal. The English Revolution of 1639 began as a struggle between two systems – feudalism, which relied on the absolute power of the monarch, and capitalism, which was supported by progressives. Feudalism no longer met the socio-economic demands of society and hindered the process of transition to a meaningful nation and state building. The peak of this struggle was the bloody civil war that gave birth to the personality of Oliver Cromwell, who destroyed dangerous and dubious meanings and their parasitic carriers, mobilized the divided forces of progressives, and defeated the old system.
Nevertheless, the revolution was not that capitalists replaced feudal lords but that Cromwell created the first attributes of the ideology of Englishness (what is Englishness, who is an Englishman and what is England). It created nationhood, the political nation and the forms of its realization. Under the banner of Englishness, statesman Cromwell conquered Ireland and Scotland, forming a strategic living space (Britishness is the outer shell of Englishness). At that moment he realized that it was only possible to eliminate the serious Celtic threat (Irish-Scots-Welsh) by controlling them and further integrating them into Englishness.
Later, England was shaken by various crises, and political regimes replaced each other. But all these processes, dubbed “revolutions” by historians (for example, the Glorious Revolution of 1688), were cosmetic, situational and tactical in nature and did not touch on the vital interests of the English nation and statehood. The First Revolution, which began as a struggle between two systems, laid the foundations for England’s transformation into one of the largest and most powerful empires in human history. Even the Irish victory in the War of Independence from the British Empire in 1921 did not destroy either Englishness or Britishness, but merely transformed some aspects of their internal content.
The Great French Revolution began with the Abbé Sieyès’ message that the “third estate” must wrest its rights from the monarchical aristocracy. Different political factions gathered supporters around themselves and their ideas, using all kinds of tools to achieve victory. At the moment when the idea of renewing the country faded into the background and the leaders of the “revolution” began fighting for power, the figure of Napoleon Bonaparte appeared (a similar story was with Cromwell in England). He became the image of a strong French statesman, who looked with disdain at the Parisian political swamp and its inhabitants. Around him, people of different views but with a common ideological foundation, building a Greater France, united. The majority was tired of constant false promises and manipulations by “liberators” and “democrats” of various sorts, and the real intelligentsia could not get used to the humiliated and half-occupied state of the country. General Bonaparte drove the English out of Toulon, dispersed the political swamp, created the foundations of the French nation and statehood.
Bonapartism became and remains the deep ideology of France, despite all the ups and downs of the country over the next two centuries. Most of the leaders who became national authorities (e.g., Georges Clemenceau and Charles de Gaulle) openly called themselves Bonapartist statesmen.
History has many such examples – the American Revolution, which transformed formerly fragmented colonies into the United States, the Irish Revolution, the Zionist movement in Israel, Polish Solidarity, the Iranian Revolution, etc. Thus a number of conditions are necessary for the beginning, development and ultimate success of a revolution. The first is the presence of an ideology that sets the task of creating or renewing the strategic foundations of the nation and statehood.
Any meaningful ideology is not about separating and dividing people in order to achieve personal goals (as happens in riots or rebellions), but about uniting them, which requires the “unifiers” (the aristocracy) to make a conscious sacrifice of the personal for the good of the common.
The second is the presence of a multilayered national aristocracy. The first layer of aristocracy is philosophers who create meanings. The second layer is acting politicians and capitalists who realize the importance of changes and are able to implement theoretical meanings in practice. Practical realization of strategic meanings gives birth to the concept. The third layer is the guardians of the concept, who perform the function of its protection, modernization, and reproduction (deep state).
The Armenian Revolution began on May 28, 1918 with the proclamation of the First Republic. Even today we can say that it was doomed to failure in advance, since Armenian independence was a consequence of geopolitical cataclysms after World War I, rather than the result of a careful struggle over many years based on a formalized ideological foundation. The lack of a universal ideology led to the creation of separate narrow groups of influence that saw the model of nation and statehood formation in their own way. The Dashnaktsutyun, Ramkavar and Hnchak parties were focused on fighting each other, creating deep dividing lines within the broken nation. It should not be forgotten that the establishment of the First Republic went hand in hand with the genocide and deportation of the Armenians of Western Armenia. Yerevan did not even undertake such an important mission as the elimination of the ideologues and organizers of the genocide, ceding this mission to the Dashnaktsutyun party.
Independent Armenia had to demonstrate to the whole world that from now on it is responsible for the life of every Armenian and capable of punishing all those who threatened it and its people. At that moment, every Armenian was looking for just that – a resolute reliable protector and avenger rolled into one. This would have no political consequences for the young Republic in the international arena, as the same Young Turks were sentenced to death by the Constantinople court.
Businessmen of Armenian origin did not become the national bourgeoisie, choosing to cooperate with major European players who divided oil and other resources in the region. At that time, Calouste Gulbenkian, Stepan Lianozov, the Mantashev and Aramyants families were the richest men in the Middle East and among the top capitalists of international level. However, by their nature these people turned out to be just shortsighted businessmen whose ideology was simple – less responsibility and political risks, more profit and a quiet beautiful life. They had nothing in common with Lord Rothschild, who bought the Palestinian mandate, sponsored the Zionist movement and raised large amounts of capital to build independent Israel. The result of the Armenian approach was not only the loss of the capital itself, but also the lifelong oblivion of those who had worked so hard to earn it. Gulbenkian “granted” his legacy to the Portuguese dictator Salazar, Lianozov left his wealth to the Finns and the French, and the Aramyants’ capital was given to Soviet Baku and Tbilisi.
“Without me Zionism would not have succeeded, but without Zionism my work would have been stuck to death”.
Edmond de Rothschild
Even within the power group, there was no agreement and no unified position. Even such giants as Garegin Nzhdeh, Andranik Ozanyan, Drastamat Kanayan and Tovmas Nazarbekyan could not become the Armenian analogs of Oliver Cromwell. It cannot be said that those involved in the construction of the First Republic were complete egoists and did not want to create a nation and a state. Aram Manukyan, Shahan Natalie, Armen Garo, Poghos Nubar, Alex Manoogian, Vahan Kardashian, Garegin Nzhdeh, Andranik Ozanyan and many others were patriots who gave a lot for the sake of the country. Even Armenian Bolsheviks like Stepan Shaumyan, Anastas Mikoyan and Kamo Ter-Petrosyan loved Armenia in their own way and wished the best for their people. However, this is all about emotions, that are an obstacle to a real meaningful revolution. The end result is that the First Republic was swallowed by the new Soviet Empire, a product of the relatively successful Russian Revolution of 1917. It created an imperial nation, and for 70 years Armenians were an inseparable part of it, faithfully serving the interests of the Soviet statehood. This fact demonstrates that Armenians integrate well and succeed for others but consistently fail at their own.
History gave an opportunity to continue the Armenian revolution in the late 80’s of the last century. Its interim results are complex and contradictory, and therefore require a thorough analysis in a separate paper.
To be continued…
