Interview
with Chairman of the Board of the Civil Society Institute Artak Kirakosyan

It
is obvious that civil society became more active, starting new initiatives
during recent years. In your opinion, what had fostered that and when the
activism became noted?

The first wave of the civil society
activism happened in 2004, after the 2003 presidential elections, the notorious
decision of the Constitutional Court, followed by the people's protest and
demand to call for a referendum on the trust towards the government. The rude
disruption of the demonstration on Baghramyan street led to youth protest. Since
the end of 1980-s this was the first spontaneous wave, in which many young
activists took a real role to play.

The second movement was the movement of
volunteers, which strengthened during the same time, when social conditions
somewhat improved and youth, students, instead of seeking means for education
fees and everyday bread, could have some contribution in the social life.

Today civic activism is based on
volunteers. The strength of this movement is that it is spontaneous, flexible
and can react on challenges in a fast manner. However, at the same time, it is
not institutionalized and mainly acts in reaction to some events, namely it has
a function of speedy reaction, such as activism around the Mashtots boulevard,
Central Market, murder of Vahe Avetyan and other.

So
who are reaching tangible results today and brings change, these civic groups
or developed public organisations?

One can not exist without the other, they
both form the atmosphere. The initiative groups are supported by organizations,
intellectuals, who maybe do not participate in protest actions everyday, but
they work at their place.

In general, in the public sphere, it is
always difficult to talk about concrete successes, results. When somebody
tells:”I have done so and so and reached great results”, it is both true and
not, because it was not done by him alone, there were processes in social life
which brought about these results.

What
does our civil society miss?

We have a certain number of public
organizations which can work with donors and do not have financial problems,
and on the other side, we have active initiative groups, but we also have a
sleeping society, and nobody seems to look at this issue and consider awakening
the sleeping society as a major task.

In my opinion, civil society should range
from the radical activists to NGOs working closely with the government, This is
an ideal situation. Nevertheless, a process of polarization worked here: on one
side, radicals, strongly criticising the government, and on the other side,
organizations serving the government.

It was caused by the fact that many
organisations have not radicalised. Then, they had to stop operation or become
somebody's servants. A gap was created between the two “camps”, such
polarization should not be there.

There are big issues in regions, we need
to work there much more than we do now.

What are the strong sides of our civil
society?

Our strong side is that NGOs and civil
groups are involved in practical work, in other terms, there are only few NGOs
which deal with artificially created problems.

There are organisations which can
professionally deal with state bodies. On one side, street struggle, pressure
became stronger, and on the other side, the work of organizations with the
government, which is not often seen, also became stronger. A lot has changed in
this sense.

There should be an opportunity that
people, groups of people work in every area, some protesting and some-
cooperating. This is civil society.

Can you say that today we have an
established civil society?

Nobody in any country can say that they
have an established civil society. It seems to me, that the biggest issue we
have is that since independence the state of Armenia had been not thinking
about strengthening civil society. One of the reasons is that in 1990s the
county was in a poor condition and could not afford such a “luxury”. This
problem was left on the shoulders of the West and at the beginning it was
encouraged. Then a moment came, when it was no longer encouraged but nobody asked
a question who in this case should develop the civil society?

In my opinion and the opinion of many of
my colleagues, the main issue is that there is no political and social demand
for development of civil society in Armenia.

Why
there is no such a demand, maybe it is not in the interests of the powers?

Mainly, it is the question of inertia of
old days, they think that this is not the issue they can grasp. Charity is more
or less acceptable, popular, but in broader terms, in terms of civic participation,
they think “the West is dealing with it, so that's enough”.  On one side, they are content that the West
supports it, but on the other side, they do not want anybody to intervene into
their affairs.

In general, in Armenia there is a problem
of formulating strategic issues. Either no strategic issues are outlined, or
some unrealistic, fantastic ideas are presented as strategic. We need to learn
how to formulate concrete, real issues and develop strategies.

In which phase is political
development in Armenia?

I always compare political development
phases with football. At the beginning, when children play football at their
play yard, everybody runs after the ball. Wherever is the ball, all but the
goal-keepers are nearby. In professional football, the roles are divided: there
are half-backs, fullbacks, attackers. 
Everyone has his own functions.

In '70-s the Dutch came up with a total
football, when the fullback and half back could join the attack, and attackers
could take the functions of the defence, if there was such a need. This means
that everybody has his own role, but it is not rigid, it should be possible to
take other roles if necessary.

We still are at the level of children's
football, all run after the ball, the problem. There are public organizations,
which try to work methodically, but they are also at the pre-total football
level, busy with their one issue, and not reacting at anything else.

Here we can conclude that our civil
society is not very developed. The most fundamental question here is that the
issue of civil society development is not in the agenda, it is left on its own.

Theoretically, I accept that our society
is our strength, but people are not concerned with the task of its
institutionalization. Or, randomly somebody raises his voice that civil society
is a European project, and they start thinking how to prevent any outside
intervention.

Then, when we can say that we have a
sustainable, developed civil society? What is it in your opinion?

The ideal civil society is when the state
and society can adequately face challenges. When an issue appears, then people
try to raise it at corresponding levels, propose solutions, and issues can
range from a water problem in a village or extradition of Ramil Safarov. To do
this people need knowledge, resources, entry into corresponding state
authorities. To me, this is the ideal civil society.

By Mary Alexanyan

19 September is the Day of Civil Society.
It has been marked in Armenia since 2009.