It is the assumption here that the Armenian society is engulfed in the
domination of values of personalized power over the rule of law and the
domination and exercise of solely personal interests over such interests that
are protected and exercised together with others. This assumption is based on
the modern relations of the ruling parties and clans and the atmosphere of
public distrust both within itself and against the ruling powers of the country.
As a way-out the essay suggests a brief reflection on the ideas of
republicanism, liberalism and humanism. It is a hope of expectation that
deliberating on these ideas even only virtually some change is brought forward
over a passage of time. Such a change may become an alternative to the
domination of the current religious, social, political and cultural
demoralization of the individuals in our society.

It is the assertion here individuals in Armenia live by customs of family ties
and they live by little if any national ties of their own. An individual in
Armenia knows that in his/her activities intended to reach a goal it is hopeless
or absurdly useless to rest on the canon of law. The law exists where there
exist ties and connections preferably kinship ties and kinship connections. It
is often assumed to be good to bypass the law if an individual can exercise his
capacity and connections where he/she can. In a philosophy like this no nation
and no society can live. The rigidity of the modern structures and institutions
of state that are in total control of the monopoly interests of very few it is
indeed an imagined community rather than a nation. The degrading and
demoralizing effects of such a philosophy are counterproductive for what a
nation should be. In a summary it is possible to say in our definition of a
nation “We are individuals who understand that we are separated by personal
interests and have stopped at some point in history to invent out things that
will unite us legally and morally like many nations did”¹. To advocate a
contrary point of view it is the western philosophies that are appealed to here.

It was a Protestant church that at some point in the past suggested looking
towards reason instead towards revelation². R. Descartes demanded to contest and
overthrow authority that has only historical justifications³. It is a complete
fallacy that praises family and not individual “The basis of the Armenian
society is a traditional family. Formation of strong and healthy families,
retention and development of national values in a family must be among the
matters of high importance for the State”⁴. Our moral stagnation and national
estrangement of the individuals flows from the historical sources of exalting of
our blood ties of family and kinship only. As a result we have not been able so
far to learn to trust and believe in an individual. We have not been able to
learn to trust in an individual who is next to us but who is not tied to us
family connections but only language and self-consciousnesses of being an
Armenian. What is said here is that in the era of nationalism we completely
missed our chance to build a nation. Nations are created yet they are created
through general rules and rights for all.

What is the essence of such rules? They should be based on declaring that it is
the law that must rule and not the people. The power must be distributed among
the groups of society [not the families but the interest groups] and expressed
via fair balance of power and not individual and personalized monopoly of power.
The power must be distributed so that the minority and the smallest part of any
majority an individual must be protected in any sphere of his/her social,
economic and political life. The national union shall be expressed in the common
interest of the protection of an individual as the protection of the individual
that makes the nation common for all. The contrary thought is the destructive
one⁵.

This above said does not mean there should be no competition of interests. On
the contrary, any economic and political competition is welcome when it is aimed
at the common good of everyone. It is possible to say wherever an individual
works for personal advance but who does it via creating conditions (economic,
political, social and so on) and establishing goals healthy to the common good
it is a part of the values of the national interest. All of this can be reached
provided that both the individual and groups of society believe in common or
‘universal’ legality of rules for everyone without exceptions. This is possible
only if the there exist a healthy system of norms and trust in the judicial
system. So creating a nation at this stage must become fighting for the fair and
just judicial system which must be independent from any combination of political
and economic power, single individual or clans or families. Thus, we must
forsake the historical belief that justice is in the power of family. Justice is
the principle expressed through a state power but by means of an independent
judicial system and not the parody of it as it is now in Armenia.

It is a correct observation made by A. Smith that the legal bond makes us a
greater family and such a family is the nation⁶. Thus, we do need to make a
reform of values and reform of a legal system to ‘invent a nation’ not just a
family. It is probably long time that we possess family but possess no nation.
We do need to invent a nationalism of our own. Thus, the reform that is needed
to be carried out is the one that goes just contrary to this statement “Any
reform must match the traditional system of values of the society and be
directed to the modernization of that system”. It is the traditional system that
prevented all of us from noticing an individual and a citizen. While failing to
notice an individual we failed and will fail to see the nation. We do need a
reform and the reform must be total starting from family values to especially
our legal system and individual thinking. This is not however, the only a small
conclusion of this essay and a small summary of thought. Other thoughts will
follow.

--------------------------------------------

 ¹ «Or l'essence d'un nation est que tous les individus aient
beaucoup de choses en commun, et aussi que tous aient oublié bien des choses» in
B., Anderson. Imagined Communities (“Kanon-press-Ts”, “Kuchkovo Pole”, Moscow,
2001) 29

² C. Lamont “The Philosophy of Humanism” (Humanist Press, New
York, 1997) 52

³ G. Rohrmoser “The Crisis of Leberlism” (Ifran, Moscow, 1996) 72

⁴ The Republican Party of Armenia, Program <
http://www.hhk.am/eng/index.php?page=program > accessed on 11-7-2007

⁵ See also the famous statement of the strangest of all the
republican party programs “The RPA builds its relations with public and
political forces and individuals acting in the Armenian present reality on the
principle of the priority of the national and state interests which the RPA
deems higher than any personal and other individual interests” The Republican
Party of Armenia, Program and S. Khachatryan “The Political Culture in Armenia?”

⁶ Smith and not only he continuously stresses among other criteria
the legal bonds for an individuals from civic nations. Among other things he
also defines the nation as “political-legal community”. See also the definition
in Smith, A. National Identity (University of Nevada Press, Reno, 1991) 13, 14