This article in
Armenian

The expression Armenian lot or fate
is one of the frequently used concepts in historical-political context. Within
the context of European languages, the famous Polish linguist A. Vezhbitskaya
has analyzed this concept of “fate”.  The author demonstrated that this simple
and even naïve concept has different meanings throughout the various European
nations, in other words, it depends on the cultural context. Within the Armenian
language, there are the concepts of “tchakatagir” or fate, destiny
and “bakht” or fortune. The first one has a fatalistic

implication, as it talks about something that is predetermined yet impossible to
foresee. It is usually used when something bad happens. It is rarely used with a
moral implication. For example: “This is my destiny, and I am going to fulfill
it.” Within the European languages, there is this same difference between Latin
fatum and fortuna: the concept “bakht” is closer to European
“fortuna”, good luck, fortune. Although, the opposite is often used - they say:
“I don’t have bakht”. However, I think Turkish linguistic thinking
influences that concept “bakht”. There is a Turkish word ghsmat, which
Armenians in the rural areas use.  The Turks say: “we’ll meet tomorrow, if there
is ghsmat.” A. Vezhbitskaya writes, “The meaning of this expression is closer to
the ancient English expression “God willing”. Thus, Armenians borrowed their
philosophy of fate from the Islamic Weltanschauung. In elevated style, “ghsmat”
has been replaced by the word “tchakatagir”, in the same way as the word
“ashugh” (bard) has been replaced by “gousan”.

Due to its semantic content, bakht
is closer to European fatum, so we can assume that this movement from
ghsmat to fortune has been achieved because of the influence of literature,
and particularly of European literature. In addition, Armenian romantic
literature often uses words bakht and tchakatagir, drawing closer
both meanings. The difference is that tchakatagir is usually used in an
elevated context, while bakht is used  in regards to common occurrences
or events, for example when talking about marriage or winning/losing in a
lottery game.

If we define bakht as fatum,
then its meaning is expressed in such derivatives as fatality or fateful etc.

In fateful moments, circumstances
develop in such way that a person appears at a certain crossroad. In fateful
moments a person should decide whether to run risks or not. At such
moments the fate throws down a challenge and there is a need to make a crucial
decision. A person can turn to horoscopes or “fortune-tellers”. This applies to
traditionalists. It is noteworthy, that Armenian expression “to tell a fortune”
sounds like “to reveal a fortune”, which means that in traditional
societies future is closed before people and everything lays in God’s hands.
Through fortune-tellers God reveals to His elite the signs of future. In this
sense, the Christian approach is interesting: the gift to decipher the signs of
future is given only to the true Christians. The future is open to those who
have faith. Thus, Christianity extenuates the cruelty of the pagan
fate.

Turning to a fortune-teller can be
viewed as a strange way of seeking an expert. Another example can be a
conference of specialist doctors before a serious surgery. This last example
demonstrates the ambiguity of applying to an expert: the decision is made by an
expert, but risks are taken by a patient and the last word belongs to him. And
here is the strangeness of these fateful decisions: the more important the
decision becomes, the more problematic it is to make the right decision. The
expression “to reveal fortune” suggests the necessity to “clarify” the
problem of openness or closeness of future. The concept of risk, on the
other hand, expresses the extent of openness of the future people.  For the
first time this word was used by the Portuguese navigators in the eighteenth
century.  The amount of risk depended on the technical capability of the ship,
professionalism of the captain and other factors.  In other words, risk is
connected with the ability to control future events and calculate the
possibility of danger, which the sociologist Anthony Giddens calls
colonization of future. Thus, the policy of European colonization is
correlated with the phenomenon of colonization of future. Openness of
future means that people can form their own living environment by making it
more secure.  Openness of future means that the future is complete
only partially, that there are certain empty spaces in it, which enables
a person to choose his own future. It is possible to create the future.

It’s easy to notice that the concept of
risk appeared in the times when philosophy was redirected from Aristotelian
anthropology to Cartesian subjectivity.  Rationalism, the rational, and
calculating people became the complete masters of the world. This was also
the beginning of the technological revolution. To calculate risks in navigation
makes sense only in case the shipbuilding is technologically advanced enough,
when it is possible to make more secure the existence of a man, so that he can
conquer Nature. Then, the professional capabilities of the captain also become
calculable, because the navigation skills become the subject of treatises
telling about navigation. Thus, the subjectivity and technology on one hand
become means for decreasing risks, and on the other hand – a source of new
risks. That is to say, the new dangers are on the one part the results of
unpredictability and technological faults.

Ability to predict the future takes on
special significance for politics. In the Middle Ages and during the
Renaissance, many treatises named “The Prince” were written. They all viewed
politics from a religious viewpoint.  The first one was Machiavelli who
introduced the image of a rational ruler and was able to calculate the
consequences of his political steps. This gave a start to political science,
which differed from that of an ancient period of Plato, Aristotle, Fathers of
Church (the same way as Galileo gave a start to a new physics, which differs in
its principles from the Aristotelian natural science). As in the case with
navigation, politics also becomes the sphere of interaction of technology and a
new type of subject, a man.  Politics also becomes a sphere of application of
the concept of risk and calculation of risks. A politician is not valued by his
morality or amorality or for being nationalistic or
antinationalistic.  A politician is valued by his rational ability to
foresee the future. To clarify this last statement, let’s discuss Tumanian’s
tale “Nazar the Brave”. Nazar the Brave is in essence a man who accidentally won
in a political lottery and whose successes are of no value, because they are
accidental. This paradox is wonderfully expressed by Churchill in his famous
saying: “A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen
tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And afterwards the politician
has to have the ability to explain why it didn't happen.” That is, the
rationality of a politician even prevails over the real success, sure, if the
miscalculation hadn’t brought to the fatal failure. If in Christianity the
future is open to the believer, in the industrial society it is open to the
rational, reasonable individual.

The victory in the Karabakh war and
defeats in 1918 and 1920 make it problematic for us to revive the conception of
fate in the modern Armenian conditions. When trying to explain the failures of
1918 and 1920, Bolshevik historians used expressions like “Dashnak adventurers”,
“Dashnak fortune hunters” (which in Armenian has the same meaning as
adventurers). Leo, who joined the Bolshevik criticism of Dashnak policy,
made an effort to demonstrate that the problem comes to certain principles,
which have deep roots in the history of Armenian political thought. Those
principles he characterized as “clerical diplomacy” principles. Adding to Leo’s
hypothesis, it is worth mentiong that the political principles adopted by
Dashnaktsoutyun, could be characterized as pre-machiavellistic,
pre-political-scientific, pre-rational.

Dashnaktsoutyun was the largest party
within the Russian empire. During the first decade of the 20^th
century, its membership reached 170 000.  Specifically because it was the most
popular party, it should have inevitably had on one hand the seal of the common
mentality, and on the other hand – leaning against the artistic thought. The
fact that Armenian common mentality still carries an influence of the conception
of ghsmat, it is evident in the amount of people taking part in
lotteries. For such mentality, the future, “the Land of Nairy” is in a mist.

Literature also leans against the
conceptions of fate and fortune, although followed by the
principles of artistic interpretation. Art and literature are intended to show
the uniqueness of human existence, confrontation of an individual with the
bourgeois lukewarm leveling atmosphere. Conceptions of fate and fortune reflect
the tragedy of poetic existence. It is easy to abuse the parallel of historical
fate of the nation and fate of a poet. Although, M. Nalbandyan already wrote
that the true poetical is calculation (rational thinking). In a society, where
everyone is a poet - that is to say everyone is interested in making life
aesthetical by traditional rituals - the rational man is really a poet, in other
words – he is unique.

During the nineties, rational thinking
people came to power in Armenia. A Polish journalist called the Armenian
revolution “a revolution of mathematicians”. In these years, various political
centers opened in Armenia, most of which do not exist any more.  Thus, the
society itself was eager to be reconstructed in the field of political thinking
according to the principle of rationalism.

Nationalism in Armenia was suppressed.
It is not that hard to imagine what would happen if it were supported. We may
bring the example of Serbia, where nationalistic propaganda has been supported.
As we know, a number of excesses took place, which gave occasion for applying
sanctions towards the Serbs. E. Charents in his wonderful poem “Khmbapet
Shavarsh” showed the peculiarities of such a mentality and psychology. I believe
that if at the battlefront they did not suppress nationalism, we would also have
excesses, and the outcome of 1918 and 1920 would be repeated. Among the reasons
of victories in the Karabakh war we should certainly mention this rational
thinking.

During the second half of the nineties
the extent of adventurism of Armenian society has increased. On the one
hand, it is stimulated by the successes of adventurous businesses in Armenia, on
the other– by the despair of the majority of the population. The majority does
not believe that they can change their status due to their hard work or skills
anymore. They set hopes only on a miracle, let’s say, to win in a lottery game.
The future once again closes its doors. Time-serving strategy and behavior of
politicians can be an indication of it. The indication of it can be the fact
that in higher authoritative circles the number of adventurous
politicians has increased.

The number of adventurous politicians
has also increased due to the nationalistic propaganda and abuse of poetical
conception “Armenian fate” within the political context. It decreases the
ability of society to understand the amount of military, diplomatic, political,
social and other risks. Moreover, this means that today the risks of returning
to the 1920s has increased.