Paul
Goble
Staunton, May 10 -- Fresh from his election as Armenian prime
minister, Nikol Pashinyan did exactly what his predecessors have done – he went
to Armenian-occupied Nagorno-Karabakh and thus demonstrated to Moscow and to
his followers that “even after a popular uprising,” nothing essentially new had
occurred, according to Vitaly Portnikov.
It is possible, the Ukrainian commentator
says, that this was not simply a gesture to Moscow that the Armenian revolution
is not a threat to Russian interests but rather reflected his own deeply held
convictions as well as those of his countrymen whose demonstrations brought him
to power (graniru.org/opinion/portnikov/m.269833.html).
In stressing the uniqueness of the Armenian
events, Portnikov says, Pashinyan is following in the tradition of many in
Georgia and Ukraine who continue to argue that their revolutions are unique as
well. “But all uprisings always resemble
one another: However they are organized, they are always a protest against injustice.”
And that means, he continues, that “the
most interesting things begin not during but after a successful uprising,
because namely then it becomes clear whether the vector of the development of the
country has changed.” In Georgia and
Ukraine, that shift away from Moscow toward the West was immediately evident.
There was an understanding among
many but far from all in both cases that a break with Russia was needed in
order to overcome problems like corruption.
Over time, some Ukrainians have shifted away from that awareness and
that failure helps to explain one of the ways in which present-day Ukraine is
like present-day Armenia, Portnikov continues.
But Armenia’s main problem, the one
on which everything else hinges, is “its geopolitical fate.” As long as it
remains locked in the Karabakh dispute, the Ukrainian analyst says, the Armenian
state won’t be able to breathe and won’t be able to address the problems of
corruption and inequality that sparked the rising in the first place.
A revolution with those roots can “begin
to change a country only when society is prepared to recognize the truth about
itself and its problems and when the leaders of the revolution have the courage
to speak this truth” to their followers.
Pashinyan had a chance to do so yesterday but didn’t. And he must do so if real change is to happen.
What is likely to come next? “Pashinyan
will deliver flaming speeches, he’ll win the parliamentary elections, and he
will solidify his role as undisputed leader of the country – or, on the
contrary, in a few months, he will be viewed by his former supporters as a
windbag. But what is most important: poverty and hopelessness will never leave
the Armenian home.”
And that in turn means something
else, Portnikov continues. There will arise as a result “a natural
disappointment in the uprising. Why did they go out into the street? People will
ask, encouraged by Moscow and pro-Moscow propagandists; and because that is the
case, the Kremlin is much calmer about the Armenian than the Georgian or
Ukrainian events.
It will then be able to use them to “once
again convince Russians in the uselessness of all Maidans and other revolutions”
and thus re-insure itself against a challenge to itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment