Elections in Armenia

[crusader1492]

Re: Presidential elections 2008 in Armenia

First, there is no "objective viewpoint." We view reality through our own subjective experiences. While there exists an objective world, we can only know about it in a limited form, through our subjective sense of self.

Second, everyone desires distinction and everyone thinks that they have tapped in to some esoteric knowledge and everyone else is the sheeple, so it's a non-issue in my opinion. "Sheeple" = those who do not agree with us.

Third, just a friendly reminder to keep it cool. Being subtle about your dislike of someone or their viewpoint and trying to save face by claiming you have high hopes for someone does not erase the fact that a sentence above you tread a fine line Mr. Crusader.

Thanks, I work hard at that.

My own question to you: since when is it naive to support freedom of speech? Rail against democracy all you want, but a democracy and free speech are mutually exclusive.

When you're right, you're right. I agree. However, LTP's brand of free speech is like yelling FIRE in a crowded building when there is none...people get thrown in jail for doing that.

[yerazhishda]

Re: Presidential elections 2008 in Armenia

First of all, I'm not from the homeland (although I have been there many times). I'm a second generation Armenian American, similar to yourself. Secondly, I was not equating that your opinions have to match mine in order for me to like you. i was actually just kidding around...you're Armenian, you play guitar and you're from RI. How can I not like you?

Really? I think I just assumed that you were b/c you speak Eastern. Hey my fault.

Anyway, I agree with what you wrote concerning the people should at least feel that there is a choice. That is exactly how it is here in America too...there really is no choice. I'm sure you realize that democracy is a ruse (ask Anonymouse). I just hope you realize that the "opposition" as it stands now in Armenia, is completely unhealthy for Armenia's future because the opposition is working for foreign interests (think color revolution) who do not have any affinity for Armenia.
Let me go a step further and assert that the opposition (knowingly or unknowingly) is working for Turkish and Azeri interests.

Oh, I know that voting is just for show and pomp! That's why I'm confused when the average joe gets so flustered over politics (just turn on a TV or read a newspaper and look at the way some Op-Ed writers take politics so "personally"!); it's nothing you can control in any way, shape, or form.

I've always heard that LTP was a "Turkish Spy" but I've never been convinced b/c I've never been presented with any substantial evidence. Until I am presented with semi-credible evidence, I refuse to believe an Armenian would be working against the Republic.

...this is why the "opposition" is so dangerous. Furthermore, this is why the opposition should be shut down. Look at what happened in the events leading up to March first...since when do Armenian citizens act this way? Attack eachother, loot, burn and destroy.

Since elections are rigged.

Anyway, when a real grass roots opposition party takes shape (one that is formed without foreign interference), I'll be all for it. But, until then I agree with Armenian's assertions that President Sargsyan's government should clean house.

I agree that there needs to be a "real" alternative to Sargsyan and LTP as they are both corrupt on some level. By no means do I think LTP is an angel. Just look at how he jailed Tashnagner and banned their newspaper. Although I'm no fan of the ARF's extremist and socialist policies, they should be able to express their ideas. Similar to the people thinking that "their vote counts", they must also be able to express their discontent or they will rebel like we saw in March.

[Mos]

Re: Presidential elections 2008 in Armenia

Bottom line: serzh is better for armenia and keeping it's stability. The claims of corruption and 'anti-democratic' acts by serzh and his republican party may be true, but right now we will benefit more from stability and continuing growing our economy then criticizing our government. Everything has its time. Our pro-Russian stance has proved effective over the past years and a pro-western stance will not help us in any way. Levon should stay quiet if he wants the country to go forward, he had is chance as president and he screwed it up.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Presidential elections 2008 in Armenia

Bottom line: serzh is better for armenia and keeping it's stability. The claims of corruption and 'anti-democratic' acts by serzh and his republican party may be true, but right now we will benefit more from stability and continuing growing our economy then criticizing our government. Everything has its time. Our pro-Russian stance has proved effective over the past years and a pro-western stance will not help us in any way. Levon should stay quiet if he wants the country to go forward, he had is chance as president and he screwed it up.

This is essentially the bottom line. What Armenia needs is not more swings of the pendulum, and it needs a steady trajectory of development and stability. A fledgling nation, landlocked and surrounded by enemies cannot afford internal strife and turmoil of its own.

This taps into a bigger problem of why democracy is the worst political system. Democracy does not allow for development because it stunts growth and creates a culture of retards and entitlement. In fact, in terms of political systems, monarchy or a natural aristocracy, is much preferred over a democracy, politically speaking, and of course, economically for a variety of reasons.

Democracies essentially involve nothing more than 'squatters'. They are caretaker administrations who just occupy the throne for a given amount of time, with no incentive for the long haul. Each 'caretaker administration' seeks to appease its own base and supporters.

In particular, democracy promotes an increase in the social rate of time preference (present-orientation by promoting more legislation, more taxes, more redistribution, more debt) as opposed to future orientation (saving, low debt, investment into capital and infrastructure, development). Therefore, when one administration is replaced (often by divergent political factions) all the previous headway, reforms, developments and evolution made by the previous administration is often rolled back or stunted. In effect, nothing changes. Bureaucracy increases and so does legal uncertainty, moral confusion and overall bipolarity of the people.

It was this ambiguity and limbo which Hitler referred to in his book, and the reason why (for good or bad) Germany made so many reforms and changes and gained stability during the Nazi rule, whereas the political squabbling and factions essentially kept putting things on hold, while some made headway, another overturned the results.

[Armenian]

Re: Presidential elections 2008 in Armenia

I just hope you realize that the "opposition" as it stands now in Armenia, is completely unhealthy for Armenia's future because the opposition is working for foreign interests (think color revolution) who do not have any affinity for Armenia. Let me go a step further and assert that the opposition (knowingly or unknowingly) is working for Turkish and Azeri interests. ...this is why the "opposition" is so dangerous. Furthermore, this is why the opposition should be shut down.

Exactly, comrade. I want to see a - genuine - opposition in Armenia. Media outlets I want to see shut down (Hetq, A1 Plus, Armenianow, etc) are petty tools working for foreign intel services, they do not and should never be considered a lawful opposition in the republic. Similarly, Levon and his treasonous team of pro-Turkish/pro-West criminals in the HHSh party are not and should never be considered a political "opposition" in Armenia. Western funded media outlets should all be shut down. The leaders of the Levon camp should all be either exiled, prisoned or executed. Two fundamental reasons why they are not being dealt with properly:

One, they have significant internal support.

Two, they have significant external support (EU, USA).

Attempting to do away with them for good runs the risk of a bloody civil war and international isolation.

Bottom line: serzh is better for armenia and keeping it's stability. The claims of corruption and 'anti-democratic' acts by serzh and his republican party may be true, but right now we will benefit more from stability and continuing growing our economy then criticizing our government. Everything has its time. Our pro-Russian stance has proved effective over the past years and a pro-western stance will not help us in any way. Levon should stay quiet if he wants the country to go forward, he had is chance as president and he screwed it up.

Bravo, young comrade. You have expressed unusual depth and wisdom.

What Armenia needs is not more swings of the pendulum, and it needs a steady trajectory of development and stability. A fledgling nation, landlocked and surrounded by enemies cannot afford internal strife and turmoil of its own. This taps into a bigger problem of why democracy is the worst political system. Democracy does not allow for development because it stunts growth and creates a culture of retards and entitlement. In fact, in terms of political systems, monarchy or a natural aristocracy, is much preferred over a democracy, politically speaking, and of course, economically for a variety of reasons. Democracies essentially involve nothing more than 'squatters'. They are caretaker administrations who just occupy the throne for a given amount of time, with no incentive for the long haul. Each 'caretaker administration' seeks to appease its own base and supporters. In particular, democracy promotes an increase in the social rate of time preference (present-orientation by promoting more legislation, more taxes, more redistribution, more debt) as opposed to future orientation (saving, low debt, investment into capital and infrastructure, development). Therefore, when one administration is replaced (often by divergent political factions) all the previous headway, reforms, developments and evolution made by the previous administration is often rolled back or stunted. In effect, nothing changes. Bureaucracy increases and so does legal uncertainty, moral confusion and overall bipolarity of the people. It was this ambiguity and limbo which Hitler referred to in his book, and the reason why (for good or bad) Germany made so many reforms and changes and gained stability during the Nazi rule, whereas the political squabbling and factions essentially kept putting things on hold, while some made headway, another overturned the results.

Anon, this is one of your gems. Sadly, this converstion will fly over the heads of perhaps 99 percent of the general population. To add, democracy as we know it in the West is in itself an illusion. Reality is, democracy does not exist in true form anywhere on earth. The democracy you are speaking of (the western political system) is merely a colorful show for the masses organized by the financial/political elite. It is important to note here that this "show" works only as long as the 'standard of living' is relatively high, as in the case of the western world. Thus, for the West to continue its show it must continue providing its consumers, its audience, with a high standard of living. And they do this by engaging in wars and exploitation across the world - in the name of democracy, of course. This show worked quite well during the 20th century - the century of exploitation and global wars. I have come to the realization that democracy in the western world today is what institutionalized Christianity was not too long ago - a means to control the docile masses with promises of a better life and a pretext to interfere into the internal affairs of "unbelieving" nations around the world. After having observed politics for many years, I have also come to the realization that the best method of governance is a true constitutional monarchy. Nonetheless, with the East (Russia, China, India) rising, with global natural resources stressed, time is running out for the western show.

[HayotzAmrotz]

Re: Presidential elections 2008 in Armenia

The Armenian state of tomorrow - Հայք - should be a theocracy governed by God's representative in Հայք - the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC). Our Head of State should be the Catholicos of All Armenians of the day. No more presidents.

The AAC would dominate the civil government, which will have a Prime Minister (PM) appointed by the AAC on his/her merits rather than political affiliation etc. In other words our Prime Minister should be like a CEO, a person with a wealth of knowledge from a particular filed or fields outside politics (economics, banking/finance etc.) He/She then will form a cabinet based on merits as well. The PM will report to the people and to the AAC, if the PM seriously stuffs things up then he/she and the entire cabinet will be fired and a new Prime Minister appointed.

We will have our parliament almost in the same way we have it now. Politicians, members of political parties and independents will be able to stand for an election and if elected they will become a member of the parliament. However, the parliamentary elections will be held every 2 years. No more 3, 4 or 5 year periods. So, every two years a brand new parliamentary elections.

Another significant change to the whole political scene: The AAC will have an organization under its direct command, let's call it the State Guard (SG). The role of SG will be very diverse but one of it's main objectives will be fighting corruption on every level of the society, from the politics all the way to the economics, the SG will be the overall watchdog to ensure that no one (a person or an organization) cheats, lies, steals and betrays our society and our state.

[Federate]

Re: Presidential elections 2008 in Armenia

i agree with everything here.
but only to add that I belive that not all oppositionists in Armenia are blind LTP supporters.

True, a good portion of them just want or expect overnight change. I mean the opposition itself does not know what to do in the case that it successfully takes down Serge from office.

Levon says he wants to be president yet others who support the opposition tell me that they are merely using Levon to take Serge down. Jirair Sefilian, a leading opposition activist, has said that the opposition's goal is to get rid of the current regime rather than to put LTP in power. Doesn't this contradict with the fact that people are yelling out "Levon nakhagah" and Levon's claims of presidency? And this is only one issue.

In terms of ideology and foreign policy, the opposition is very divided. Raffi Hovhanissian's foreign policy on Artsakh is contradictory to LTP's defeatist policy. If you start comparing LTP's policy with Jirair, let alone the Yerkrapah, then it's even worse.

And from what I see it, there is absolutely no difference between Serge and Levon on internal affairs and ideology. The only difference they have is in foreign policy. Levon is ready to pay a hefty price for the solution to Artsakh while Serge is not.

[Armenian]

Re: Presidential elections 2008 in Armenia

The Armenian state of tomorrow - Հայք - should be a theocracy governed by God's representative in Հայք - the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC). Our Head of State should be the Catholicos of All Armenians of the day. No more presidents...

constitutional monarchy is good, but not like most modern states where 'democracy' is rife, and the monarchy is used for pomp, and a mild galvonising national force. i would prefer a hard line Fascist state, counter-balanced with a constitutional monarchy. Economically i would advocate, Autarky, Corporatism and Dirigisme similar to say Fascist italy, or nazi germany.

I agree with you both. I wrote the following commentary in another thread:

The idea that the masses should vote politicians into power, hence intimately partake in political decision making, is a 20th century western phenomenon. However, even in the West, this does not exist in reality, it's an illusion. But we must realize here that the illusion of the people partaking in the political system can only exist in wealthy, powerful and stable nations. In the US, for example, we essentially have two government sanctioned political parties. Let me remind the reader that this is only one more than a government sanctioned dictatorship. Politically, the Democrats and the Republicans in America are essentially the same. They differ only in minor details, namely in the realms of domestic and sociological issues. Nonetheless, if anyone comes along that can seriously challange the political/financial status quo and establishment in the US, they would be eliminated in a heartbeat. It's no secret that the nation's most serious political policies are made independent of the people by the US State Department, various special interests (Zionists, oil lobby, defense industry, mega-corporations, etc) and of course, the intelligence services. Yet, every four years the people are allowed to 'think' that they are participating in the nation's political process.

As I said above, one of the fundamental differences between the West and the rest of the world is - standard of living, its wealth. Due to the West's centuries long political exploits - colonization, slavery, foreign wars, plunder, exploitation, etc - the West is immensely wealthy today. The entire world today is trying desperately to literally live up the western standards. And let's realize that it's much easier to control well-fed complacent idiots than it is to control hungry, desperate and angry idiots. As a result of its wealth, western political/financial elite can provide for their masses and allow them to 'think' that they are participating in the political system. And that is why unlike in the rest of the world, the West can afford to put on a political show, presidential elections, every few years for the people.

Democracy, as preached by the West, does not work for fledgling or vulnerable nations because it envisions giving the ignorant masses the right to make political decisions. We painfully observed this in Armenia recently. Politically speaking, the general population in any given nation is worthless. Thus, how can we trust them to make the right political decisions, especially in nations that have serious geopolitical and socioeconomic problems? The point is, from the great Hellenistic thinkers to the founding fathers of the US, voting politicians into power was never meant to be for the masses. As I said above, the people electing high ranking politicians into power is essentially a twentieth century western phenomenon.

What's interesting here is that we require a license and/or training to do just about anything of importance in civilized nations. Why is it that the most important of all obligations a nation's citizen has, namely electing its leadership, is meant to be entrusted upon the whims and wishes of the masses? In my opinion, the democratic system is inherently a flawed system and for certain nation's it can be suicidal. I, personally, would rather see a 'constitutional monarchy' be implemented in Armenia. Most of the greatest nations on earth are, or have been until recently, constitutional monarchies. Some examples are: Japan, Sweden, Holland, Belgium, Britain, Spain, Andorra, Denmark, Norway, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Thailand, Monaco, Morocco and Jordan.

There are several surviving remnants of Armenia's ancient nobility in Europe and Russia. However, I don't think picking an individual from one of these families would be the wisest route to go. I personally would like to see Armenia's constitution give our Katoghikos a duel role: Արքա համենայն հայոց և հոգեվոր հայրապետ, king of all Armenians and spiritual patriarch. In such a scenario, Etchimadzin would transform into Armenia's royal throne, as it was in ancient times when the city was known as Vagharshapat. If need be, the Cilician Patriarch can act as the spiritual Katoghikos of all Armenians. It is note worthy to point out here that Saint Gregory's line is actually preserved within the Cilician Patriarchate and not in Etchmiadzin.

Throughout history we have had great patriarchs. At various times in our history our nation's patriarchs have more-or-less acted as kings. Why not just officially bestow upon them the title of monarch and give them some political powers? Some of our current patriarchs and senior bishops (with the exception of Mutafian of course) would make excellent monarchs. As a matter of fact, in demeanor and character, Katoghikos Garegin II is more of a king than a spiritual leader. The patriarchal throne of the Cilician See is no less capable when it comes to organizational and administrative abilities and resources. There are many political advantages to a constitutional monarchy, fundamental ones being continuity and stability of the political system and national unity.

How would the king be appointed? I do not envision a hereditary kingdom, such a system would have inherent weaknesses and can potentially cause problems. In my opinion, the king should be appointed for life just like the Katoghikos is appointed by the nation's senior bishops, who are in essence the nation's elders. The appointing of the king takes the crucially important task of electing a nation's leader away from the sentiments of the masses. This method is superior to the hereditary method in that every time a king needs to be appointed the nation's elders debate and vote for the most capable man, or woman, available for the throne. What about the people? Will they have a voice in government? As in all constitutional monarchies, the people do have an important role to play, they can elect their local leaders and the nation's prime minister.

If we cannot have a constitutional monarchy, then Armenia needs to be a one party dictatorship for the foreseeable future. And if that cannot happen either, then I say let's simple give the house keys to Moscow. Simply put, we Armenians cannot risk playing with the notion of democracy, especially in a dangerous and volatile environment like the Caucasus. Such an experiment could prove fatal for the Armenian Republic.

Source: http://forum.armenianclub.com/showthread.php?t=10518

[freakyfreaky]

Re: Presidential elections 2008 in Armenia

Police Chief acknowledges personal responsibility for March 1 events, but his defense neglects to answer critical questions like: where were all the guns and contraband to allegedly be used by the oppositionists to commit coup d'etat?

http://www.armenialiberty.org/armeniareport/report/en/2008/08/9AF22152-FEDC-4819-ACBE-7603104EE22E.ASP

[Anonymouse]

Re: Presidential elections 2008 in Armenia

Democracy, as preached by the West, does not work for fledgling or vulnerable nations because it envisions giving the ignorant masses the right to make political decisions. We painfully observed this in Armenia recently. Politically speaking, the general population in any given nation is worthless. Thus, how can we trust them to make the right political decisions, especially in nations that have serious geopolitical and socioeconomic problems? The point is, from the great Hellenistic thinkers to the founding fathers of the US, voting politicians into power was never meant to be for the masses. As I said above, the people electing high ranking politicians into power is essentially a twentieth century western phenomenon[/url]

People do not rule the government, especially the masses. The masses themselves are just unregulated force. Force, unregulated is wasted and is destructive. The blind force of "the people" is a force that must be economized and also managed. It must be regulated by intellect. It is because force is unregulated that revolutions prove failures and states do not function.

Action in its full meaning presupposes the ability to choose. Only individuals can decide their course of action. The masses, a collective entity, a group, a nation, chooses a course of action only metaphorically. In order to act any collective group must recognize a "unit of agency" which needs a certain amount of power to "represent" the collective group. Individuals cannot have identitical sets of interests for their interests often diverge and if you put different political factions, as in a democracy, at the helm of these collective groups, they squabble and each wants to advance their interests and plunder the resources of the state for their divisive factions. Hence the problem of group identity arises where interests diverge and where this is most self-evident is democracy where nothing ever gets done.

As stated, a natural aristocracy or even monarchy is superior and preferable over any democracy. The greatest trick the devil played was convincing the the mass population that they have the power to choose. When you give something away freely or make an abundance of something, you lower its value and cheapen it. Giving everyone the ability to vote is tantamount to just putting a car on cruise control while one driver who sits at the wheel turns the wheel right, and when he gets kicked out the other driver turns the wheel left, and round and round we go in swerves and curves but never straight.