Need for a golden bridge / change of government inevitable
Interview with Arthur Martirosyan, negotiation expert and senior advisor to CM&Partners of Boston
-In your previous interview you said there is a lack of feeling of justice in Armenia. What possible ways are there to find that justice and solve the problem in Armenia? The government says that reforms are being implemented in the justice, economy and other sectors, but the feeling of injustice is getting deeper and deeper.
-It is impossible to change the situation immediately and rapidly. What we need is not those separate changes but a whole revolution in the social and political culture; there must be structural changes. For example, I do not think what is going in Ukraine is serious revolution; I don’t think they will end up with changing the government. Certainly there will be reforms there to meet the requirements set by Europe to make sure where they are going. However, it will not be a revolution as a group of oligarchs will be replaced by another extractive group.
-What about Armenia?
-We are going to have an issue of changing the government too. It is hard for me to say how we can solve that problem. There are several scenarios how things can change. I think the authorities are already thinking about how they can manage this transition of power: whether they should be reproduced, or bring a new power that will be close to them and can protect their interests, or maybe a totally new power will come up and take over. People ask about a potential return of second president Robert Kocharyan, however I do not know how it can be possible. People in Armenia are waiting to see what will happen in Ukraine and what lessons we can learn from them. It is up to the leaders and negotiations of political leaders. Such negotiations will start not in 2017 but much earlier. We may not even know how and when they will reach an agreement. In Ukraine the problem is almost the same but they do not have external threats like we do. We are in different situations as their geopolitical location, economy and potential are different. However, the systems are the same in both countries as we both have semi-feudal systems of public administration. Can Armenia change, and how? A part of people believe we should go to Europe, tohers believe we should go to the Customs Union. The latter is criticized as people believe by joining the Customs Union we will lose sovereignty. I do not think this is the case, however the fact is that we have a gap that is connected with leadership. Our leaders have been, more or less, war participants, thus they have transactional leadership skills too; they are able to solve crisis issues, and they country continues to survive. However, the current challenges are very serious; the country should be mobilized differently in order to solve these problems during the coming 10-20 years and go up to another stage of development. To reach this goal we need transactional leadership or a combination of both. I do not hope for the second option as I do not see a leader who can offer visions and say how the country will be in 20-30 years. Armenia needs a big goal and small steps to that big goal; people should see that we are moving to that goal and changes are being made, and that there is competition and when we invite investors from other countries, we can guarantee their property rights protection and competition freedoms. They need trust to invest in our country. If we look at other countries, we will see that more or less transactional leadership was done in Armenia. Maybe other countries would be in worse situation in this post-war situation with closed borders. However, it does not make people any happier if there are countries in worse situation, and everyone wants the better. Going forward to 2017 everything depends on whether leaders will be able to demonstrate transactional leadership and develop new convincing visions to people so that they understand it is not mere words. I cannot say who will do it and whether it is possible or no, but the fact is that we need it. During the past elections we saw that there is huge social energy in the society, and people want to see a leader, who can show a vision not only with words but with work as well.
-And when in 2008 the people were mobilized and no real results were recorded, was that also lack of leadership?
-Yes, it was. We should understand what it is possible to change in the country through a revolution. Bolsheviks have been very well aware of technologies of organizing revolutions. When there is mobilization but all the other points are missing it causes a new frustration. For example, this same line wasn’t crossed in Ukraine but they are close to it. Berkut and other military forces cannot be deployed because it contradicts the interests of oligarchs knowing that the country is in the scope of the international community, otherwise they could have done so much earlier. They see that in Ukraine the government should be changed in a year and a half. Why shed more blood now? Revolution doesn’t only take place through demonstrations and rallies. Such things have happened but it is unrealistic for Armenia. It is clear why in the first revolution in Ukraine and Georgia people had success and why it didn’t happen here. The problem is the use of force. If the police are not on your side nothing can be done. When facing the dilemma of shedding blood or not a reasonable person might probably seek the second option. In 2008 Levon Ter-Petrosyan made a major mistake by thinking that the revolution didn’t take place. They should have seized the post office, Baghramyan 26, TV channel, railroads. If you want the other side to give in you have to build a “golden bridge” to make sure that the government leaves the power without any victims behind. But in 2008 the opposition would claim the full investigation and punishment of the culprits of October 27 parliament assault. But on the other side, we had a person who would defend his positions till he would reach the last bullet. A person must psychologically realize whether he or she is ready for that. I don’t know who was there on that day – Pashinyan or Shahnazaryan who gave the order to send the people to the fire. The leaders should know where the route is revolutionary or the steps should be taken in an evolutionary way. People wanted to go to Europe but I suggest we first become Europeans to do so. For example, in downtown Yerevan a dead cat might be lying on the street for days but nobody does anything about that. We have lost our statehood. Before the 20th century we were a nation living in the yoke of different countries. That is the right why we don’t have the sense of state thinking and working on behalf of the country. A leader has a big task of changing this matter. They should understand what is going to happen to this country in 20 years. For example, the pension reform doesn’t seem a bad thing but people are against it because they don’t believe the government. This is the biggest obstacle for development. People should have a hope.
-In your opinion what should be changed before the next presidential elections in order to ensure that the Republicans don’t come to power?
-I don’t think they are ready to leave the power. They have that potential to understand that this problem exists and they should be reformed as well, otherwise we will lose our last hope of having sovereignty and a state. Or other migration rates will reach higher levels. Our main goal was to avoid war. At present there is a little threat of a big war. But we need to accept that we need a big change necessity. But there is a big need of revolutions and it is the problem of the elite to reach this impulse to the Republicans and the rest of the parties. If this goes on the situation is going to be worse in 20-30 years. The rest of the steps depend on who the leader is. Nonetheless the vision of the state cannot be solved by one person. It should be resolved collectively with the people. They should ensure that the 20-30 year vision of the country is acceptable for the nation. You can build democracy with a few-year project. And a long-term program means that we have a common goal regardless of who’s in charge of the ruling party and what means are used to reach the goal. The intellectual elite should unite on these issues; discussions should be organized. We should clearly see the vision where the country is going. The rest are technical matters. For example, they have been speaking for 20 years that the competitive sector should be changed. But who should do it? The new generation should unite and even the Republican Party, should come up with new productive initiatives. We think that the change of government will solve all the issues. But that won’t solve the problems. If we don’t define what the problem is we won’t be able to improve the situation. The government may change but it won’t necessarily bring justice. Justice doesn’t come overnight. It requires a long time and patience. The problem is the existence of the corrupt system and not the Prime Minister or ministers.
-Is it possible for the same people to stay in their positions but the situation is improved? It seems the officials don’t ever seem to give up their posts.
-I am having a hard time imagining whether the same people will be able to improve the system. For that we need a slow process. Small models should be established. Now we have a situation that in the judicial system people make more money through corrupt means than through just verdicts. For that we need to restrict the system, raise the salaries and punish the corrupt ones. We need big changes otherwise we will lose Armenia. Perhaps the external threat is not that big but the internal threat is big. In parallel with migration it is possible that Turks and Iranian start to move to Armenia to reside. We should think about that too. But we should first of all get rid of the characters and qualities of persons and the political leaders should organize discussions. And they shouldn’t start on the threshold of next elections but they should have started yesterday. In our country negative phenomena are being discussed for too long but no solutions are offered. Moving to Europe won’t solve all the issues and the solution depends on us. In the countries that recently joined the EU – Bulgaria, Romania – there is no abrupt change despite the fact that a lot has been improved there. Corruption grows in high levels; rates of development are not that high. We should answer three questions – who are we? Where we are going? And what are we?
-The sale of Vorotan HES to the American Contour Global company has caused large discussions in the country. Experts show their interest because the energy system of Armenia is in the hands of Russians and suddenly Armenia decides to cut this deal with Americans.
-It is a myth that everything is in the hands of Russians and it is impossible to negotiate with them and try to agree on cutting a deal with Americans or Europeans. I am not well aware of the details but in the recent years Russian more frequently get what they want from us. Perhaps Americans are thinking that the Russians are here and they cannot do anything in this country. I don’t think the Russians have the total power of controlling the situation here. They don’t have these resources. They are more focused to ensure that the Armenian government elite are in their control. And the investments are more often appalled by the existence of the shadow economy and other circumstances. If we review President Sargsyan’s speech in the Czech Republic we will realize that he is well aware of the situation too. European investments require special conditions and warranties for them. During 20 years strategic alternatives of the country were badly managed. The amount of the independence of the country depends on alternatives. You cannot do this if you don’t envision the 20-30 horizon. In order to unite people we need a national goal.
By Gayane Khachatryan
