I’m not aware whether the emergence of Karen Demirchian was Kocharian’s ploy, but I can admit that that could well be one of the versions. As for Vazgen Sargsyan, he indeed was known as a wild animal and his hands were in blood up to shoulders, but it is believed that during his prime-ministership he eventually came to an in-depth understanding of the situation in and around Armenia, what powers were at play, and was said to feel more altruistic towards the people, more accountable towards their plight, and towards making Armenia the strongest in the region.

Now, whether or not Demirchian’s appearance was Kocharian’s idea, the duo (Sargsyan-Demirchian) at some point came to represent an alliance overshadowing Kocharian’s Karabakhi provincialism. I can also see that the duo came to represent an unwanted strength for the world string-pullers, or at least the potential for strength that ultimately could push Armenia ahead of its South Caucasus neighbors politically and militarily.

I tend to think that this, among other reasons, was the reason for what had happened back in 1999.

can you explain what you meant by

[...] Unfortunately, even when Armenians have a chance to rely on themselves, advance their own agenda, and build foundations of a strong state and civil society, here I mean Vazgen Sarkissian-Karen Demirchian alliance, you know what happens. [...]

I never thought of that alliance as strong. In fact, I felt that Demirchian’s appearance in the political arena was Kocharian’s idea. It was his way of defeating Manoukyan, who was a very strong candidate in 1998 (only two years ago he basically won the elections). Demirchian effectively put Manoukyan out of the race. In fact, Demirchyan put his candidacy forward after 1-2 hours of meeting with Kocharyan, who actually organized the meeting. The mentioned alliance was formed for the parliamentary elections (correct me if I am wrong) and that was because Sargsyan started feeling that he is losing his position to Kocharian and Serj, and Demirchian was a popular figure basically a pleasant face that he could show off here and there. At any rate, V Sargsyan was on his way to presidency and Demirchian was something like a puppet at first in the hands of Kocharian and then in the hands of Sargsyan. If you see V. Sargsyan as a good president, then can you please explain why? Growing up in Armenia, I only heard the most disgusting things about him, basically his behavior was nothing less than of a wild animal. Does anyone remember the “bulbulator” joke about him:) ? Or the mougli joke? At any rate, the gossips among the people don’t always correspond to reality.

I loved this line. Indeed, isn’t our history just a history of survival?

I have to however, disagree with AH’s last point. I think the west just doesn’t care rather than they want to see a weak Armenia. Look, suppose for a minute west stands for America. Look what they did. They did the color revolution in Georgia, Azerbaiajan and Turkey are pretty much their friends and they effectively turned Iran into a radical country. Armenia is a tinny spot in the middle of all these countries. Why would they care what happens in it? If they end up with all four on their side or at least three (AZ, G, Turkey) on their side and one isolated radical country, then they would effectively get Armenia as well. I suppose this is why they are concentrated on G, Az, and Turkey.
It is crucial for us not to make a mistake at this time in history. I would say being close to Russia is better than being close to the West because if Russians prevail in the fight for the region then we would be their close ally (hopefully), if Russia loses then the situation wouldn’t really change much for us, as the West just doesn’t care now, and it will continue not caring then as well. If the west prevails, they would try to force some sort of peace agreement that will effectively end Karabch conflict (almost certainly badly for us) and I suppose Az. will become the dominant economy of the region because of the oil. This might not be bad for us at all, but while the two big shots are basically fighting their fight it feels to me that we are safer on the Russian side.

If we take west to stand for Europe then I get the feeling that the Europeans don’t have any idea what they are doing. I am actually getting a little be agitated that they have take the position that they have to teach morality to other nations. As a result, they have turned many small countries into little weapons against others. Like when France passed the resolution on Armenian Genocide. Yeah, nice for us, but they did it to send a strong message to Turkey. Honestly, the guys in Strasbourg are getting to my nerves. The way they handled our own elections was a disgrace, making a positive statement and then changing it into something negative, I mean common. All these are just indications they they don’t care much either, but maybe I am wrong. At any rate, I think that among the external forces that might have serious impact on the future of our country the most influential one is Russia vs USA conflict.

Europe is really strange. For instance, it would probably be better for us if we held elections every 10 years instead of every 5. This way the country wouldn’t have “March 1st” as often as we get them (and AH, even if this election were the best in 17 years, “March 1st” of this one was the best one also) , the country would be in some kind of politically stable state, and there would be a lot of room to work on civil liberties and human rights, which is really what is missing from our society. But try to make such a change in constitution, then the very next minute some guys in Strasbourg will start teaching us a lesson in democracy, as if when America was facing great depression they didn’t let FDR stay for 4 terms. Of course, Serj is no FDR (not even close), but the point is that if we think that if our president stays longer it would be better for us then Strasbourg would start giving us democracy lessons.

The reason that Levon got supported by the west (if indeed), I think, is that he asked for such a support (not the other way around).

For those who doubt, there IS an interest in Armenia. It is naïve to presume that a single element in this world order and in the stratification of power on global scale, however small and insignificant it may seem, can be left unnoticed and unutilized. Every tiny building block, that the world pallet of nations consists of, is given due attention and is being played upon by the “string-pullers” who stand behind many of world events. Unfortunately, they pursue their own interests, and those interests are in direct confrontation with Armenia’s national interests. Knowing the potential of Armenians, they do everything they can to destabilize the internal situation in order to keep the balance of equally unstable regional states, hinder the efforts of any regional nation to attain monopoly (economic, political, etc.) over a neighbor, wipe out any nationalist or national-patriotic trends or doctrines that could emerge, etc.

These are just a few reasons why we have what we have in our country. An unelected regime largely plays into the hands of these global powers because being illegitimate means being more prone to be subservient to their political control. And an incapable, unproductive opposition that helps these powers advance the millennia-old tactics of divide-and-rule. Unfortunately, even when Armenians have a chance to rely on themselves, advance their own agenda, and build foundations of a strong state and civil society, here I mean Vazgen Sarkissian-Karen Demirchian alliance, you know what happens.

Every effort must be made to consolidate the nation, make effective use of Armenians’ intellectual and entrepreneurial potential. This needs to be done wisely and inexplicitly. WISELY and INEXPLICITLY. This of course requires time that will gradually bring about a generation change, mentality change, and a political culture development. I only wish that this time be used with profit, not to the detriment, to the nation.

Only during Levon’s campaign was the term “national traitor” used…and for what? For not supporting Levon. That’s it!

Only by Levon was racist invective brandished (accompanied by dancing euphoria) with the Mongol-Tatar references or the “Half-Armenian Half-Karabakhtsi” nastiness.

On April 24, the ONLY political force focused on something other than mourning the victims of the Genocide are Levon’s supporters who attempted to cheapen the day with more vindictive divisiveness. Even in the Diaspora, even during the worst of times in divided communities, April 24 infighting (in public at least) was off-limits. People have recognized and respected certain issues.

Why is this supported by certain forces in the West? Because they want a weak Armenia. And Levon was a perfect vehicle to undermine the state.

That segments were existing in 2003 as well, and why opposition was unable to put them into move? Regarding the hate campaign: as we can see from posts here, max LTP did was naming OEK traitors, and it was sometime around Feb.19. Before that nothing was done.
Opposingly, most of pro-gov forces used this “LTP spread hate” propaganda as a communication platform. As we know from advertising, more you repeat something, more powerful it become.If we do a keyword analysis chek on this blog, the word “hate” is mostly used by LTP’s opponents. Which is kind of a strange to me.Why do you think they were supported by west? And if so, why do you think it is worse than Russian support to SS (I am sure you know his “famous” sentence in Kremlin), which gives nothing to country, except taking everything away?

I simply do not see the radical opposition as making an effort toward this goal. They have other goals, and that is their business. I find their activity to be going exactly counter to democratic evolution in Armenia because it is ruining a noble goal with ulterior motives of power-struggle, oliharch replacement, and a step backward to when Armenia was even less democratic.

As far as your diaper analogy, I wouldn’t put a 10 year old soiled diaper back on my baby, would you?

[...]Now we have a unnecessarily polarized society.[...]
I think the polarization of the society is a result of longly monopolized process of political opinion formation. It is just feels unusual. Nothing else. Same feeling was after Soviet crash. Who was going to polling station that time? One paty, one candidate.
One lesson to learn is to be able to listen others opinion. You may disagree with it, but puting people in prison because of their opinion, creates Soviet like system, where people were sitting in their homes, silently hating the system, and waiting to crash it. System like that cant persist long. Another example from branding. No brand can exist being no.1 on the market without no.2, who does everything to become no.1. Equal-rights competition create progress.

[...]The opposition (and the nation as a whole) needs desperately to cultivate new leaders. Falling back on the failed architect of the poor system we endure in Armenia is no way forward.[...]
100% agree with you.But i do believe that new leaders can emerge only in competitive society.

That segments were existing in 2003 as well, and why opposition was unable to put them into move? Regarding the hate campaign: as we can see from posts here, max LTP did was naming OEK traitors, and it was sometime around Feb.19. Before that nothing was done.
Opposingly, most of pro-gov forces used this “LTP spread hate” propaganda as a communication platform. As we know from advertising, more you repeat something, more powerful it become.If we do a keyword analysis chek on this blog, the word “hate” is mostly used by LTP’s opponents. Which is kind of a strange to me.Why do you think they were supported by west? And if so, why do you think it is worse than Russian support to SS (I am sure you know his “famous” sentence in Kremlin), which gives nothing to country, except taking everything away?

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that all people make career in politics because of connections, but many do. I was just analyzing Giragosian’s piece not that I was claiming Nalbandian is a good choice or bad. I don’t know that, and I don’t know him either. Please, don’t get agitated at nothing.

[...] To appreciate those who built a career with the help of their next-of-kins or influential political elites while diminishing the role of unselfish generalists is to exhibit admiration for rank not personal qualities, and to support the ruling bureaucrats who tend to dismiss as inconvenient all those who are genuinely concerned for their country. [...]

This is a strong statement, and I just wish you read my comment in a different way. I wasn’t appreciating Nalbandian, I was just analyzing Giragosian’s piece.

Actually, this brings us back to the discussion we were having few days ago. Guys if we don’t understand each other we can quite easily ask for explanations. No need to make strong statement like the one above. Please, do ask questions. That way we will have a more productive time here. Strong dead-end statements lead us nowhere. See I apologized for sounding too general in my post. So had you asked me what I meant by

[...] People make career in politics because of their connections, just being dam good isn’t enough and sometimes isn’t even required. [...]

I would gladly apologize for sounding too general and you wouldn’t need to get angry and make such statements.

As for my post, I was just referring to someone’s earlier one that foreign minister’s appointment was “strong, professional, and positive.” I guess by means of a media excerpt, the credibility of which, I agree, can be dubious, I just tried to enquire whether the appointment of such an individual can at all be categorized as such.

Not all people make career in politics because of their connections. What a superficial generalization! There has always been a critical minority of dedicated, hard-working, “damn good” generalists with qualities, indeed, sometimes even not required, who, nevertheless, often times make difference while generally unnoticed and unappreciated. Many such people have left this government because of the dominance of nepotism-driven, overly ambitious bureaucrats with Herostrat complex. To appreciate those who built a career with the help of their next-of-kins or influential political elites while diminishing the role of unselfish generalists is to exhibit admiration for rank not personal qualities, and to support the ruling bureaucrats who tend to dismiss as inconvenient all those who are genuinely concerned for their country.

Had the foreign minister made his “professional diplomatic” career because of his connections, I’d somehow understand it. What I wanted to know was if the appointment of someone with a background in Soviet military intelligence, a Russian citizen, and a non-diplomat (other than working under the diplomatic guise) can be characterized as “strong, professional, and positive” for the national security and independence of Armenia.

I definitely agree with this.

On Nara’s post. I didn’t read the full analysis either, but just analyzing that one paragraph, I don’t understand the need for including expressions such as ““professional diplomat,”” or the suggestion that “Nalbandian gained prominence more from his ties to the Russian political elite and his personal connections with Russia than from any significant diplomatic experience or achievements”. Even if this statement is true, I still regard it as a bad journalism as it creates some sort of bad feeling towards Nalbandian, and I don’t think it is the media’s job to create such feelings (maybe I am wrong, in which case please do correct me). I would prefer a paragraph that emphasized Nalbandian’s Russian connections without putting words in our mouths that Nalbandian is basically Russians’ puppet. Such things always happen. People make career in politics because of their connections, just being dam good isn’t enough and sometimes isn’t even required. Therefore, for me it is natural that Nalbandian made a career because of his connections. But he did make a career which is an important fact that is rather ignored by that line. That line really sticks out, while his main substantial point is voiced rather mildly in his last sentence. The core of the message in Giragosian’s paragraph is the last line, and that by itself is a very interesting observation. But his build up to it is not constructive at all, as he basically doesn’t let us make our own impressions of Nalbandian but rather forces us to read, what I consider to be, a lousy line on Nalbandian’s past.

I agree that media doesn’t need to stay neutral , but I would also like to see media not creating tensions and bad feelings towards this or that politician. This is what I was trying to say.

If you are not with me you are not only against me but a traitor, a sell-out, and evil. This was the message to the ARF, to OE, to Vazgen Manukyan, to all the opposition or potential opposition groups in society. Look at the shameless propping up and support of LTP as the prime opposition candidate months before he gained any traction in society by “independent” groups like RFE/RL. The impeachment group got some negligible support only months earlier. So other than a well-financed attractor of the protest vote, what did LTP stand for? A we won’t back down goading the authorities until blood was spilled? LTP got what he wanted: A torpedoing of the process, a removal from the stage of alternative groups who had different visions for Armenia, ie a hijacking of the opposition. If instead, ANY of the other groups would have brought the disgruntled together, I am confident that the frustration and discontent would not be whipped up into hatred and divisive destruction.

Had LTP not pushed, we would not have had March 1.

This is not a defense of the authorities, and it does not acquit them of some of the blame for all of the events noted above. However, now some delusional youth in Yerevan feel turned off to the process, have less motivation to get involved and make a difference, because instead of backing someone who would reinforce hope, they instead chose hate. Now we have a unnecessarily polarized society.

The opposition (and the nation as a whole) needs desperately to cultivate new leaders. Falling back on the failed architect of the poor system we endure in Armenia is no way forward.

I hope this helps explain my meaning of hijacked.

I wholeheartedly reject such approaches. Elections were doomed from the moment LTP hijacked the opposition. There needs to be an opposition that is committed to playing watchdog on principles in Armenia, to encourage independent media to call the authorities on their shortcomings.

As far as the reality on the ground in Armenia…What has changed? Elections were the best in 17 years (not saying much, but that is the assessment of the international observers). The economy has been growing (because of, despite) the governmental actions of the last 10 years.

I think this is the most optimistic time in 17 years…time to immigrate to, not emigrate from. Time to address some of the issues you identified and get to work, not get caught up in someone else’s false dreams and then cry hopeless when their ugly coup doesn’t work.