Tweet
Democracy or Constitutional Monarchy?
Recent events in Yerevan have actually proven that Armenia is more "democratic" and expresses more "political freedoms" than any western nation today. Can anyone here envision an equivalent of a treasonous criminal like Armenia's Levon Ter-Petrosian in American politics bringing millions of people into Washington DC and holding unsanctioned demonstrations against the state with a political platform that would be considered suicidal for the US, and then inciting violence when security forces attempt to disperse them? Can anyone here imagine, let's say, Chinese or Russian owned news outlets taking over a large portion of America's news media and disseminating anti-state and pro-East propaganda? Can anyone here imagine foreign NOGs stirring public discontent in the US? Can anyone here imagine such scenarios in the US? No, no one can realistically imagine such a scenario because we all know that responsible authorities in this nation would 'never' allow such a situation to get to that dangerous level. Such types of foreign agendas in the US would be eliminated even before they are implemented. That is why politicians in places like Russia, Serbia, Armenia and China simply have to disregard the "people" and do what they have to do to protect the state.
Recent events in Yerevan have also proven that Armenians cannot be entrusted with political decision making. As we recently witnessed. The practice of democracy in a nation like Armenia can prove to be fatal.
This brings up the almost 'sacred' concept of "free and fair elections": 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 the same shit but from different assholes. 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' 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, England, 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 Katoghikos of all Armenians. It is note worthy here to point out 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 would 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 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. These are simply my thoughts, nothing more. Nonetheless, I know one thing for certain: Free and fair elections in Armenia? NO xxxxING WAY!
Armenian
Comment