Interview with Movses Demirchyan, Candidate of Philosophical sciences
Movses, what is the post-election situation like? All the political actors are in the parliament but there is still no expectation of change.
It is wrong to say that the parliamentary election did not bring any change, they are just ambiguous. First, all the main actors really entered the parliament and it is good but, on the other hand, from the point of view of the voters, I think we have regress because the voters had no possibility to make a choice because the campaign was full of gossip and criticism. Nevertheless, the parliamentary elections have had an important achievement. The ideological fight has not been transferred to the National Assembly which is now a bit apolitical.
Movses, the society also seems to be a little apolitical. What is the situation there?
There is an important thing which is not spoken about but it is necessary to speak about it since it is the axis of public processes. The important is not the fact that how it is interpreted. The civil society is an institute that in philosophical sense interprets uniquely the public phenomena. It is one thing when you say that the marketplace of Yerevan is unlawfully dismantled and it is different when you say that it is worn and needs to be destroyed to build something new in its place. Evidently, the civil initiatives interpret public processes unilaterally. The events regarding the market place, Mashtots Park and issues of homosexuals are interpreted unilaterally.
In case of Mashtots Park the issue was specific. Public territory must be returned to the public.
It is necessary to remember that the fact itself is not important, people always deal with the interpretations of the fact. We have no civil initiative in the wider sense of the word and civil initiatives are not a proof of a full-fledged society because civil society means a variety of opinions and tolerance to this variety. We have only attempts to present unilateral interpretation as absolute truth. This is a model that splits the society. We have an issue of the information and analytical field because any fact needs to be interpreted from different aspects. The basis of the civil society is the art of interpretation. It is meaningless to fight homosexuality in Armenia, it is necessary to find a proper interpretation of this phenomenon to help the society accept it. This phenomenon will be considered illegitimate unless it is found. If we want a civil society, we need to interpret facts so that many facts could fit into the consciousness. This is a profession which we don’t have.
There is civil activeness and it is growing. This activeness should be directed to professionalism of interpretation of the facts. The actions of those who criticize homosexuals don’t stem from patriotism and humanism, or the wish to defend the Armenian species but their stereotypes, archaic ideas and consciousness. In case of such interpretation, things will become clear and we will understand that the atheists and homosexuals are ordinary people and it is not our business what they do at home.
Movses, one year later presidential elections will be held. What do you think, do we need to change the leader or change the society?
In order to interpret this issue it is necessary to state the following – since Armenia is undergoing globalization, it is under the influence of Europe, Russia, the West, to some extent the East, Armenia is in a complicated situation. At the same time, under this influence different systems have formed, including educational, economic, social relations, which have been introduced from outside, they were established, the laws were adopted. These systems remain alien to us and are therefore not effective, these systems have no alternative, we have not created systems for us and therefore have to live with these systems. In other words, we need to change together with these systems like the system of education changed, and students quickly learned that by attending the lessons they score credits, they quickly integrated with this system. The dark side of the moon is that they started learning less but in the long run it is the problem of the learner, not the system of education.
They got adapted to the education system but unfortunately we do not adapt with the other systems yet. The fact is that the systems develop faster than people. We cannot keep up with these systems but these systems will develop without taking us into consideration because these changes are leading us towards European integration. In other words, this is a dilemma – should the systems develop without us or should we try to become involved in these systems? It depends on this whether we will perceive our president as a leader of the nation, king or benefactor, whether we will say he is a workman like us, we work in our place and he works in his place. In reality, it depends on this and not on a person whether there will be a change because the latter is just a character in the public consciousness.