Vazgen Manukyan’s Address to the 17th Congress of the National
Democratic Unity Party; November 28, 2007
Presidential elections will take place on February 19th and, as always, the
hopes of our people for change in our country’s realty are palpable.
Symbolically, on the same day, the 20th anniversary of our Movement will also
be celebrated. A Movement whose period we remember with pride, glorious
emotions and enthusiasm. A time when we were all united, sharing the same
emotions and, inspired by a commonality of purpose, we were able to work
together. All of us were fearless. In 1990, when the Supreme Soviet, in this very
hall, accepted the Declaration which outlined the kind of government we
wanted to see, we were overjoyed. We were on the right road. It was a
Declaration based on the ideas propounded by the Movement. It was this
Declaration that served as the cornerstone on which to build a government after
national independence was legally achieved. As an independent state we were
victorious in the Karabakh War and the foundations for democracy and free
enterprise were put in place. But there was also disappointment, disillusionment
and apprehension regarding the future. And today we find ourselves in this
situation. In this regard all of us share some portion of guilt. Here, I am not
concerned with levels of guilt, with who did what. I am not a judge; it’s not my
place to speak of such things. Let history be the judge.
What is the state of the nation in which we find ourselves today?
Democracy was been proclaimed, but what about the elections, the most
essential mechanism for democracy? This is a mechanism that the government
of the people must safeguard, but it absolutely doesn’t exist in practice. State
power is in the hands of a few individuals who operate as they so please. There
is no judicial system to speak of; it’s subservient to the power elite. Corruption
is widespread, from top to bottom. It saturates the entire governmental
apparatus and all segments of society. Natural resources are being tossed away.
Teghut is just the latest example of this process. The appreciation of the Dram
has dealt a heavy blow to the pocketbook of many and it’s ruining our
economy. This is the situation in which we live. It’s a nation in which free
political or economic competition doesn’t exist. As a result, the political and
economic levers are in the hands of worthless people whose sole aim is to retain
those positions. Anyone who possesses a sense of morality, intellect and reason
are left out of the system. Yes, these are the conditions in which we live. It’s not
by accident then that the resolution to “free ourselves from them, at all costs”
has taken hold in our society. This is the imperative of today’s society. The
question remains, will be able to do so, and if we are, won’t we fall into the
same trap? However all this isn’t conditioned merely by the actions of
individuals. What’s hidden underneath is a system created a longtime ago and
which has been operating for many years. What are the roots of this system?
How did such a system take hold after that period of shared jubilation?
In general, after revolutions take place, there’s a group of individuals who
participated in the revolution that set themselves apart from the rest. This group
begins to see themselves as an elite which is guided by principles and ideas that
the rest of society still cannot fathom. Thus, it’s considered dangerous to listen
to what the people have to say and to give power to the people. The same chain
of events happened to us here. A certain group of individuals perceived itself to
be in a position of superiority to the people, that it was their destiny to lead. It
felt that the danger in listening to the people lay in the possibility that a free
spirit would come along and, taking advantage of the popular discontent, would
steal the reins of leading the people. Only this group understood the concept of
independence, not the people. Only they grasped the meaning of modern
government, not the people. In order that the people not continually stand in
opposition to them and hinder them on this path, it was necessary to diminish
the level of national thought. This was more so the cases since the burning
issues of the day were of national import. According to this group national
thought became a bogus concept.
At the same time another problem arose. If we became an independent state
and were forming a government, where would the financial and economic elite
come from? In the future this elite would play a decisive role in the matter of
regime change or retention. It was for this very reason that this elite was formed
from within the group itself. The entire privatization process wasn’t based on
competitive precepts. The most capable of running and developing businesses
weren’t granted property rights but rather they were distributed to those from
with the group itself. Sitting in their offices, paper and pencil in hand, they were
giving away factories left and right.
With the passing of the Constitution in 1995 this system became even
further entrenched. But it was put to a serious test in 1996 because this time
around it wasn’t the Communists or some other forces that stood in opposition
to it that could be accused of being against independence or the building of a
modern government. In 1996 it was a massive segment of the Movement,
guided by the same principles and ideas of independence and freedom, which
stood in opposition to the system. It became apparent that it all was selfdeception and that the system, in essence, was more concerned with
safeguarding personal interests. Sadly, the group in power couldn’t rise above
issues of personal and team interests. The events of 1998 were conditioned by
what happened in 1996; October 27th by 1998, and the elections of 2003 by the
events of October 27th. All this has lead us to what we face today; it’s one long
chain of events. It’s easy to believe that I might find it difficult to talk of such a
chain since my name is intimately involved in it but rest assured it’s absolutely
not a personal question.
New people came on the scene in 1998, but who were they? After 1996
serious psychological complexes arose within one segment of those in power.
The segment not so affected took over the reins, so what? And what were the
changes they brought? If their predecessors declared that the people understood
next to nothing about democracy or modern government, the newcomers began
to state that the people knew nothing about the Karabakh issue and national
matters in general. “If we leave it up to them they’ll hand over Karabakh and
everything else as well”. The old mentality was changed with something else.
The former distorted matters based on the idea of an “independent state”, while
the latter used the basis of a “national idea” to falsify.
This brings us to the second question. The newcomers reasoned using the
same logic. If we’re relying on the elite we have to bring in our people, to
enrich it, all the while tolerating those of the former regime who don’t represent
a political threat. It was only natural that since they were from Karabakh they’d
bring in others from Karabakh along also. If they had been from Stepanavan
they’d have brought along others from Stepanavan. A terrifying state of affairs
was created in Armenia. A nation once united, a nation that collectively won the
Karabakh War, suddenly began thinking in terms of I’m from Armenia and
you’re from Karabakh. To this was added another phenomenon. If up till then
corruption existed and was deeply embedded it now became a system unto
itself. Extensive work projects are being carried out, roads and buildings are
being constructed, ministries are operating, and at the base of it all is
corruption. That’s to say that corruption isn’t a temporary manifestation but
rather it’s the basis for everything being done and that all governmental
mechanisms are constructed upon it.
Not only do we wish to liberate ourselves from those in power and from the
current situation. We want to change the system as well. We want to change our
mode of thought; we want to transform the state. It’s clear that the present
regime must go. However, we cannot reorganize the state and place it on a
normal footing just by replacing individuals. That’s impossibility.
Thus, the question comes up – exactly what changes do we need to make?
When we speak of system-wide changes most people think in terms of a new
Constitution and new laws. Of course, it’s a correction perception but it’s not
sufficient. We can take a fairly mechanical approach to the problem. For
instance, we can simply copy the Constitution and laws of any given wellfunctioning decent country as our own in the belief that this will insure that we
too will live in a decent country. It doesn’t work this way. I can bring you
scores of examples of Asian and African countries which, after attaining
independence in the 1960’s, adopted the Constitutions of the United States and
England as their own, but to no avail. They were just laws written on paper,
pure mechanistic formalities, and nothing more.
There are specific philosophical and ideological principles at the core of any
efficiently operating system that have been accepted by the majority of the
people and without coercion become dominant in their line of thought. There is
a centuries-old struggle behind the European system of today. This struggle
includes the Renaissance, the Reformation, the French Revolution, the
European Revolutions of 1848, etc. The current European system is grounded
on the ideas that this struggle gave birth to. We must understand that no
simplistic mechanical approach was adopted in this case; there was no copying
of another’s favorable constitution and laws to make a decent country. This
isn’t how things happen. Let us repeat the fact that at the base of every
efficiently operating system is a set of dominant ideas that a majority of the
populace, of its own free will, views as its own. If we set out to merely replace
some individuals and if the people aren’t united around a certain idea, namely
that idea which is dominant for us, then we will go down to defeat. It’s not that
we will win and be caught in a trap; no, we simply won’t win. Why? Because
the strongest force in the world that can raise a people up and change their life
are those dominant ideas entrenched in the mind.
What are the dominant ideas that surfaced in 1988 that our people hold dear
today? It is only on the basis of these beliefs that an effectively functioning
system can be created. During the life of the Karabakh movement there were
two pillars upon which rested our entire mode of thought and they were both
dominant.
The first was the concept of freedom –something which Armenians cherish.
When we take a look at our history we see that Armenians have always fought
for their national and personal freedom. Armenians have been at the forefront of
liberation struggles from India to Hungary. It is based on the yearning for
freedom that democratic government is built, where an individual is granted the
possibility of living freely, protected by law from government infringements, to
have contact with the world around him and to live with pride as a free citizen.
These are dominantly held ideas and for anyone to say and coerce us, in the
name of this or that national ideal, that all of us must hitch our horses to another
wagon and go forward, is sadly mistaken. This road leads nowhere.
For Armenians there’s another dominant belief as well. The Armenian is
devoted to his traditional national values. He wants to live an Armenian
lifestyle according to Armenian traditions and to help solve national issues.
However, Armenians also desire to cooperate with other peoples and this is an
important characteristic trait of theirs. We are probably one of the most tolerant
and cooperatively minded people around. However, in conditions of peaceful
competition with others we also desire to identify ourselves as part of a team
and to feel as sense of pride with each team victory. And it is understandable
that to advance in competition isn’t merely an opportunity to feel such pride but
is also productive for all on a personal level. Armenians want to become fullyfledged citizens of this nation but they also want to feel as being members of a
global Armenian nation. In this context it’s wrong to say – let the Diaspora put
its own house in order first and then we’ll sit down and talk with them. Most
Armenians live outside of Armenia and there they are able to cooperate with
one another, to take pride in Armenia and they want to work on some overall
projects. To limit oneself within the confines of the state would mean to toss
aside the internal resources of the Armenian people accumulated over the
centuries. In this context what’s important is that these two ideas/beliefs –
freedom and national form – aren’t contradictory. In fact, they only work
productively when they are linked together.
When you renounce or shy away from the “national”, the concept of
freedom isn’t operable; when you renounce the concept of “freedom” that
national aspect doesn’t apply. The two are intimately linked. These two
components must always be taken into account whenever we are drafting a
model, whether it is for an educational program, or in the fields of health or
agriculture, etc. For example, let’s take the United States model for agriculture.
When the sizes of farms were increased and their lands expanded what resulted
was that one percent of the population was working to feed the rest. It’s a
picture that absolutely doesn’t correspond with our reality. But the Italian
model, for example, where farm lands are maximized through cooperative
methods, is something we can identify with.
If the issue we set before us is to merely eek out an existence on this patch of
land, then the quality of our educational system isn’t important. During the
Soviet period we had a fine scientific and educational system. Why? Because
being an empire the Soviet Union had grand ambitions for itself, it was waging
a struggle with the world, and it understood the importance of science and
education in that struggle. The Soviet Union exploited us and we took every
possible advantage of its brilliant scientific and educational system. If we
adhere to the idea that we’re part of one team and that by cooperating with other
peoples and nations we are simultaneously competing with them as well, the
necessity of such a system again returns to the fore. Development in these
sectors is vital if we are to proceed forward. This is the road we must choose.
I’m convinced that 90% of our people share the same long-term vision, whether
knowingly or not. And if the people fail to move forward, with the aim of
building a state based on the principles of freedom and national ideals, they will
fail to defeat the riff-raff. And even if they do so, the people will never become
the masters of the country. Regarding what other controversies do some
renounce the “national” and others, the concept of “freedom”? The Karabakh
issue has occasionally been discussed from this viewpoint.
Never has the Karabakh issue taken on such significance during an election
period as it has now. This is why I’d like to present an abridged version of our
viewpoints on the subject of Karabakh.
The notion that we should hand Karabakh back and thus live peacefully is
fraught with danger. You won’t live peacefully; Armenia will disappear. As to
the other popularly held notion that – not one inch of land to anyone, those are
our historic lands – is equally wrong because it doesn’t constitute a political
approach to the issue.
The Karabakh movement wasn’t a religious struggle or an ethnic conflict as
some portray it. It was a struggle for the self-determination of a people, a
struggle for freedom and security. But there’s also the issue of historical justice
at its core and an issue of national yearnings, both for people of Karabakh and
Armenia. Azerbaijan responded to the political struggle of Karabakh with
brutality and military operations which soon escalated into full-fledged warfare.
They started the war from which we emerged the winners. We welcomed the
beginning of negotiations in 1994 with the understanding the Karabakh would
be a participant in the talks.
Karabakh has been an independent country for the past 15 years; it has
earned that independence. There is a generation living there for whom the old
status is ancient history, just as the period of Czar Nicholas is for us. Naturally,
they have their share of domestic problems there. It’s not a country in which
everything is ideal; they suffer from the same ailments as we do. But it’s an
independent state. I am not aware of a single instance when other nations have
sat down and signed papers that ultimately delivered a country such as this into
the hands and jurisdiction of another state. I cannot recollect such an historical
event. Only in two cases can such a thing occur – when a people freely elects its
status and declares that it wants to be incorporated into another nation; or due to
foreign conquests resulting from war.
It would be absurd to speak of returning the lands around Karabakh at this
time since all the other sides haven’t fully comprehended these issues. These
are lands that insure and serve as guarantors of Karabachos security and
protection. Such a move would only serve to incite Azerbaijan to war, thus
endangering the security of Karabakh proper and that of Armenia as well. We
would lose Zambezi and much more. We’d lose our self-confidence, the faith in
our forces and the faith we have in our future.
Why is it that the negotiations haven’t produced any results? Who’s the
guilty party here? Of course, the first guilty party is Azerbaijan. That is if you
can describe it as guilt. What is its transgression? Convinced that the passage of
time works to her benefit, Azerbaijan demands complete capitulation.
According to this formula Azerbaijan, due to its vast oil reserves, not only
enjoys the possibility of developing its economy and strengthening its army in
the interim, but is being perceived as an important player in regional affairs by
others since it is the natural ally of Turkey. Given this state of affairs
Azerbaijan isn’t talking about mutual concessions but rather about total
concessions and this is the line she’s pursuing in the negotiations. And what is
the transgression of Armenia in this context? Armenia’s fault lies in the fact that
neither is she capable nor is she seriously attempting to utilize this time period
in such a manner that it works in her favor. Does such a possibility exist? I
believe so.
The first condition is that Armenia must be a truly free and democratic
country. Those enterprising individuals who go to the Americas or to Russia to
seek fame and fortune can do so here. Just give Armenians the freedom to act
and you’ll see how quickly all sectors of the nation will develop. When this
happens people will be truly proud of and devoted to the homeland.
Then too we have a worldwide Armenian Diaspora whose financial potential
and influence is comparable to Azerbaijan’s oil leverage. If we don’t put this
potential to use then we’ll lose out. Until we start putting the time at hand to
work for our benefit there will be no real negotiations with Azerbaijan. They
will be all a fraud. During the war when Azerbaijan was convinced it would win
it was conducting negotiations with our guys in Stockholm and elsewhere. This
was just a clever ploy on their part since they were convinced they’d win the
war anyway. But we won the war and forced them to the negotiations table.
One can illustrate the present situation by saying that there’s a kind of” cold
war” ensuing between Armenia and Kharabakh on the one hand and Azerbaijan
on the other. Only our victory in this “cold war” will transform the talks into
something real and will ensure a just solution of the issue.
But there’s another issue here that I’d like to link to that of Karabakh. In
those territories where nations are in conflict with one another, any given
solution will be temporary. And we live in a region where all nations are in
conflict. None of the problems in the Europe of old were being solved – the
questions of Prussia, Danzig or Alsace-Lorraine. Then there were two World
Wars and after which the program for a United Europe came into being. It was
by way of this program that all these issues were solved. Thus, we’re the most
interested to see the start of a regional process of integration, from the Caucasus
Mountains to the Persian Gulf. Just imagine a stretch of land where you have
the issues of Abkhazia, Ossetia and Karabakh, the Israel-Palestinian conflict,
the matter of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide and the conflict
between Iran and the West. Indeed, didn’t such a program appear fantastic
when it was first presented in Europe? There you also had peoples who were
seizing lands from each other and warring with their neighbors. But the
program produced results. This must be our mission in this part of the world –
to continually work along the path leading to membership in the European
Union and at the same time to come up with a plan, a vision that will interest
and be of assistance to all the peoples and countries in the region. This work
will take decades to achieve, but without it any solution to the pivotal problems
in the region will be of a temporary nature.
Until then, by making time work in our favor, perhaps we should be looking
at the possibility of Karabakh being granted a 10-20 year mandate under the
auspices of the European Union. In the past this notion was presented in a
piecemeal manner to the people and we’ll focus on it in more detail in the
program. But of course it’s a subject for serious study and discussion. In our
estimation such an outcome would be conducive not only for Karabakh, but for
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and the entire region as well.
Let me return to that model of government that we wanted to achieve. Is it
possible for one political party to achieve this? It is out of the question. If this
model doesn’t become the dominant ideal of the society and if the populace
doesn’t rally around it, there is little chance of achieving it. Despite the fact that
my candidacy is now being debated, I am calling for all to rally around me. I
am calling for all of us to unite around a set of ideas. As to who will lead, we’ll
find that person. Let us understand that the members of our team haven’t come
forward to rule over the existing model but due to the fact that they sincerely
wish to change it. Those who rally around this ideal must show that throughout
their life they have sought to change existing models and not merely benefit
from them. You know that now you can literally push and shove someone to sit
on the chair. Let’s assume that the person sat on the chair – what really changed
if the model remained the same? Simple government and money – why should
it change? If there is no wide-scale popular movement, if that one individual
isn’t a standard bearer of the ideal itself, how are things to change? We’ll only
go from one pitfall into another.
There are many political parties out there, fragments of the Movement, and
others who simultaneously share both the national and democratic ideals. By
saying the following I do not wish to offend the others, but I consider myself
and the National Democratic Unity party to be a huge fragment of the
Movement. There are parties that do not directly come out of the Movement but
with whom we’ve traveled the same road and with whom we share certain
principles. We have traveled the same road as the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation given that we share certain of their national concepts. We are in
agreement with the Rule of Law Party when it comes to the program of reforms
it wants to implement. For the most part I cannot understand where we differ
from the Heritage Party in terms of ideas. I don’t wish to list them all here but
there are many others and I call on all of them to rally around a set of ideas.
Let’s assume that all this happens and a new president is elected. What will
that person do? Let me try to present our vision:
1. The new president, according to the Constitution and taking into account
the wishes of the majority in the National Assembly, must first set about
forming a new government. The powers of the president aren’t that limited. He
can assist in seeing that a government is formed that will be of a higher quality,
more effective and more transparent in its operations. Just imagine a person
who is swept into the office of president on a wave of shoulders of the people.
When necessary, he could, with the backing of the people, pressure the National
Assembly and the government to pass resolutions of utmost concern for the
people and nation. That’s a great deal of power.
2. The powers of the president are already sufficient to shatter the
existing illegal foundations of the clans.
- We can do away with the monopolies (exclusive privileges) and move
to a system of quota tenders. In other words, the right to import various
quantities of product will be granted to different firms through open
competition. I don’t want to get into the details of the process here, but I
will do so in our program.
- The removal of the inequity of certain taxes and customs duties
3. Form a committee of specialists, untainted officials, respected political
figures and citizens, that will study all the illegalities, crimes and
violations of the law that have occurred in the past in all sectors of
society.
However, if the president himself starts deciding who is guilty and
who is not and begins have listed above regarding the creation of a
committee, the monopolies and the government, are issues requiring
immediate action, but the essential question is how we go about changing
the system.
4. Without question we must adopt a new Constitution. The two existing
versions are both unsatisfactory and counterfeit and weren’t accepted by
popular mandate. In our estimation the new Constitution must prioritize
the following:
- A Parliamentary Republic - This is not something for me to decide,
but rather the society at large. Personally, I’m more a supporter of the
parliamentary rather than the semi-presidential or presidential system.
Given the situation in Armenia the latter could easily turn into a
system of royalty.
- An Independent Judiciary - There can be no freedom without an
independent judicial system independent of the Executive Branch.
Also there needs to be a legal structure that does not permit the
corruption of judges since judges may operate independently of the
Executive but still be corrupt. This is an issue for the law to tackle.
- Local Self-Governance - Regional Governors must be elected to
office and there’s a need for regional councils. Regional authorities
need to be linked to the central government along horizontal lines of
integration, and not solely from positions of dependency. Each Marz
(Region) must be able to conduct its affairs and solve its internal
problems as an administrative unit with its own budget separate from
that of the overall State.
- The Right to Hold Referendums - The people must have the right to
hold referendums by signature. If a minimum of 50,000 signatures is
collected a given issue can be voted on by way of popular referendum.
A listing of issues that the people can vote on by way of referendum
needs to be drafted. In this manner the people will be able to express
their mistrust of the ruling government between election periods.
5. The president must also be obligated to create conditions favorable for
the development of political parties. The most important mechanism for
achieving democratic government is the existence of political parties,
regardless of their ideology or whether they’re part of the ruling
government or in the opposition camp.
To achieve all this will require time, about 2-3 years. Subsequently, by
way of a mandatory new Constitution, a new government will be selected.
Only in this way will we be able to convincingly state that we are going
forward.
Let us remember one more thing. When you’re going into battle, to change
the regime and to create a qualitatively improved state, you can only win
when you have the backing of the people, for whom you’re not an idol to be
worshipped but a standard bearer of a set of shared ideals. When this occurs
it will be a force to be reckoned with. Such a deeply held wish and ambition
will guarantee that any new regime will be under the scrutiny of a citizenry
envisaging a change of government and a new way of life until such time
that it achieves the promised changes to the system. If they seek to deceive,
then every type of upheaval and revolution is justifiable and legitimate.
This is all I wanted to say her today. Let me repeat. We were victorious in
1988 because we were united around a set of ideas and not personalities. We
can go on to victory if we rally around a set of clear and comprehensible
ideas that are indelibly etched in the mind and soul of every Armenian.
Thank you.