Star Wars and Armenians

so what woudl Star Wars and Armenians have in common? I would say at least one analogy that comes to my mind is hte dialogue that two of hte characters have. Thus in a scene when the two characters are about to have their culmianting fight the follwoing conversation goes on:

Anakin Skywalker: If you're not with me, then you're my enemy.
Obi-Wan Kenobi: Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

this reminds me of the overall absolutism that Armenian life is blanketed in. and the whoel protocol thing just highlighted this absolutims even more when people (both pro and anti protocls) used "sith" like methods to draw lines and to exclude anyeoen who did not agree with them.

in an environment such as that it is quite possibel for people to keep listening and hearing what they want to hear and hence the chances of an intra-Armenian dialogue have actually diminished even more.

this fear of factionalism might be a manifestation of Armenian male insecurity complexes where leaders of various organizations and groups in Armenian life (and in Armenia for that matter) would love to be surrounded by "yes sir" and "yes sir, yes" people rather than exposing themselves to alternative ideas and concepts.

this whole situation leads most experts and almost all of the "experts" on history and politics to articulate ideas and concepts that they think the public wants to hear rather than what the public SHOULD hear.

this in turn makes one wonder, should the leadership follow the public by repeating what appeases them or should lead the public by educating and informing them?

I think at the end of the day, the lack of democracy in Armenian world makes the leadership of Armenian organizations throughout the world non-representative of the people they claim to represent and hence increase the divide between the people and those who "represent" them!

emails

being the lazy person I am, instead of a blog entry I wanted to share an email corespondance with a reader regarding one of my recent postings.

Mr. X wrote
The only sensibly thing you say, Sir, is this:


All this makes me wonder where were all these labels when Armenia was being run to the ground for the last decade, the social deterioration, the increase corruption, the political oppression, and the list goes on. I can only think of one label myself these days “Hypocrisy”. If people think that rights of Armenians to live in safety, or the protection of their rights to criticize the thick-necked “politicians” without “disappearing” the next day is any less of an issue than demanding justice for Genocide, then they are completely misguided.


Where were these “fervent protectors of the rights of the Armenian nation” a year and a half ago when the rights of the largest segment of the nation was brutally undermined? I don’t accept the notion that people who are demanding the resignation of the president are better equipped to lead the country and the nation.

Still I don't see how this necessarily makes supporting the protocols the right course of action. How about just being consistent and say that corrupt drug addicts with a record of gambling who were instated in power as a result of killing of 10 of his countrymen should not be allowed to make decisions of this magnitude that determine the future of the nation. Simplified? Sure is, but at least it is consistent, unlike what you are saying. And what you are saying is going to lead us nowhere—trade, dear Dr. Spurkian, is not a sufficient condition for development. Never has been. Governance, on the other hand, is. When/if you care to make a point how you are going to get the governance issue fixed in Armenia after you signed the protocols with SS in power, you can count on my support (for whatever it's worth). In the meantime, I won't be offended if you take me out of your mailing list.

the response of Dr. Spurkian (you know someone has ego issues when they refer to themselves in thrid person)
Dear x. points well taken, except that in no way I support the protocols in their current format, nor do I support SS in any way (gods forbid). my major "beef" is looking at how the Diaspora never takes ownership and is only good at criticizing Armenia (regardless as to who is in power).


I believe that there should be institutions and mechanism put in place before the border is opened and I don't just mean economic mechanisms rather social and political. The Genocide issue has captured the Diaspora to an extent that they have become obsessed with it and can't see other detrimental issues beyond it.

The day after

it's done, the protocols are signed and the traitors of the Armenia nation have already been assassinated in the media and in the minds of many people. However what will be done now? Well for one thing, there should be a lot of contemplation on the Armenian side to realize what happened and why couldn’t people stop it from happening. The numbers’ game put aside, the lack of leadership in the Armenian world (both in Armenia and in the Diaspora) was accentuated in recent weeks.

What’s worse is the constant manifestation of the uneducated rambling and actions where many people attribute ideas and concepts to people without their knowledge or even without their approval. so for instance, while it is wrong to assume what would have a person who had passed away think or say about a specific issue, it is but compelling to bring up the case of the late Hrant Dink while discussing this issue. There have been documented cases where in recent weeks Dink has been used as an anti-protocol symbol without realizing the irony that had Dink been alive today he could have been one of the most vocal supporters of this agreement.
 
this makes me think of one word (two words actually), mob mentality. that has been the driving force behind Armenian opposition to the protocols and as such has been ineffective, to say the least.

Hypocrisy pays off?

These days the only thing that Armenians talk and write about are the signing of the protocols and their impact on Armenian life. The “anti-protocolites” (who will now be promoted to “anti-normalizationites”) have been up in arms calling for the president’s removal and calling him traitors. It seesm that being a traitor is so easy these days, first Obama was labeled as such (because he failed to use the word “genocide” in his address), then you have the appearance of traitors from times past (the former president of Armenia LTP), and now we have the current president of Armenia labeled as “traitor” and “worthy of assassination”.

All this makes me wonder where were all these labels when Armenia was being run to the ground for the last decade, the social deterioration, the increase corruption, the political oppression, and the list goes on. I can only think of one label myself these days “Hypocrisy”. If people think that rights of Armenians to live in safety, or the protection of their rights to criticize the thick-necked “politicians” without “disappearing” the next day is any less of an issue than demanding justice for Genocide, then they are completely misguided.

Where were these “fervent protectors of the rights of the Armenian nation” a year and a half ago when the rights of the largest segment of the nation was brutally undermined? I don’t accept the notion that people who are demanding the resignation of the president are better equipped to lead the country and the nation.

If the “anti-protocolites” can’t adapt to the fact that the protocols have been signed and now’s the time to strengthen the state, rather than stay on the margins and blame the president for doing all the wrong things, then their situation is even more hopeless than I thought.

Clash of egos

Following the tour that Armenia’s president has been on, the demonstrations “welcoming” him and the public statements made during and after those visits I cannot help but wonder about some of the issues raised there. Being a doctor, I am in the habit of identifying a problem, finding its causes and then, if I could, find remedies or solutions. In this case my initial diagnosis is a acute case of egos, inflated with a sense of insecurity with a side effect of disorientation and increase sense of self-importance.


After having conversations in Armenia, the Diaspora and after reading statements from “anti-protocolites” during the meetings with the president, one common feature that came up was that those making grand statements against the protocols had an inflated case of self impo(r)tance or an overrated sense of confidence as to what was it that they’re doing. More often than not, the supporters of the president sounded like broken records, each repeating the same idea, sometime with the same words). However on the “anti-protocolite” side, while the speakers used more diversity the striking thing was the misguided notion that they spoke on behalf of the nation. Regardless of how many people showed up in the demonstrations in Paris, NYC or LA (in and by itself a major issues as the proportion of those showing up is minimal compared to the overall number of Armenians living in those cities), the “anti-protocolites” have mixed the lines between respect and argumentation. The meetings with the president were used by many to show off (“look mum, I am addressing the president” situation) or at best to repeat pre-formulated grand statements.

Once again, Serge Sarkssian is not the president of All Armenians he is the president of Armenia and if the citizens in Armenia are not taking an ownership in this issue (which they should) then the diaspora could only keep on ranting for self-medication purposes.