Category Archives: DEBATES

Issues of the State Apparatus and Economic Reforms

Summary

Merujan V. Mikaelyan

To this day, there is a false perception among state and political circles in Armenia that the Third Republic of Armenia is still very young and inexperienced. Thereby, the serious shortcomings that exist in the sphere of state building and the economy are conditioned by that reality.

More importantly, inspiring this position further is that more time is required for our statehood to mature and be in a position to confront all the foreign and domestic challenges facing it and to resolve issues related to a sufficient standard of living, the respect for human rights, the protection of social justice, a civilized political culture, free competition and the issue of establishing a state apparatus based on knowledge. Such a fundamental mentality postulates that it could not have been possible in a 20 year time period to reach more qualitative accomplishments, in particular, taking into consideration the Karabakh Issue, the geopolitical position of the country, the limited natural resources and the centuries-long absence of statehood. We are convinced that this is not the position of responsible, capable and honest political leaders regarding the fate of the country, but rather the attempt at hiding their own mistakes and shortcomings. This is dangerous because it condemns the country to severely modest accomplishments, acquiescence and to the disillusionment and weakening of the entire nation. Certainly, a large part of these factors are a limiting influence on a country’s development.

However, this publication highlights the examples of other countries where natural resources or geopolitical location are not decisive factors for development. Proper political structuring and the presence of an efficient state apparatus are decisive. An efficiently structured state apparatus is completely able to compensate the influence of limiting factors as stated above. And when there are rich natural resources and favorable conditions, an inefficient state apparatus cannot save people from poverty, inefficiency and autocracy. It is exactly in this issue that our leaders have failed. An efficient and quality state apparatus has not been formed in Armenia due to an absence of information and placing personal and group interests above pan-national interests. It is formed incorrectly in an institutional sense and as a result, the potential of its personnel is insufficient. As the example of other countries illustrate, there are clear arguments which attest to the fact that 20 years is entirely enough time to create a high quality state apparatus. The examples of those countries that had experienced war and transformations in their social systems, illustrate that working sensibly during that time period is entirely sufficient to create a mature state governing system and is even able to thoroughly cure corruption that is deeply entrenched in those societies, and formulate a new, just and an accomplished culture. As a result of an absence of professionalism and the existence of self-interest, during the past 20 years, political leaders and civil servants, in conditions of a defective, unjust and incomplete state apparatus, have not properly utilized the capacity of the Diaspora, the unity of the pan-national potential, the great chances rendered by its geopolitical position and the high individual ability of our people. Simply put, our political leaders and the state apparatus until today have not had sufficient abilities to understand, evaluate and utilize this great potential.

Twenty years is an extremely long period of time to have undertaken great projects. And we are still in a tumultuous stage – the small and medium-sized businesses, who, subjected to the oppression of monopolies have been pushed out, the all-embracing corruption which has established an interest-pursuing society; has made big business the enemy of society; and transformed the state apparatus into an apparatus of injustice. In terms of democracy, free competition, and social justice and in terms of serving the demands of the empowerment of the nation and the state, Armenia’s state apparatus has completely failed.

Aside from different paths and tools to untie this complex knot, the complete renewal of the state apparatus and an innovative restructuring of the economy will have decisive importance. The present realities require that we approach these issues outside of standard approaches. A whole grouping of solutions is brought forth in this article, whose realization requires extraordinary measures for authorities; and in case of their inability, on behalf of civil society.

Summary

Hovhannes G. Khorikyan

Movses Khorenatsi’s, “History of Armenia” contains information which reflects events and phenomena connected with Armenia in the 6th-4th centuries B.C. The comprehensive investigation of the “History of Armenia” provides the opportunity to make accurate historical-geographical definitions, and clarify its scope. The information provided by Movses Khorenatsi about Hayk and the first Haykides shows that the Armenian Highland, long before the Achaemenides, was mainly inhabited by Armenian tribes. In the article, we conclude that according to Movses Khorenatsi, Armenia till the 6th century B.C. had a large territory and its main territory, according to ancient sources, entered into the structure of the 13th satrapy of Achaemenid Persia. Satrapic Armenia was one of the largest and richest parts of Achaemenid Persia in the 6th-4th centiries B.C.

Summary

Dimitry N. Sargsyan

In the Hebraic manuscript of the Bible the mountains, upon which Noah’s Arkested, were situated in the country whose name was written with the ‘RR’T consonantal root. This is in accordance with the Country Urartu mentioned in Assyrian cueniform inscriptions. That Country Urartu was called Armina in Persian and Elamitic cueniform inscriptions, and in the Latin trnaslation of Indo- European origin of the Bible, it was called Armenia. The Greek translators of the Bible added the first letter ‘a’ of their alphabet to the consonant of the ‘RR’T consonontal root and got the Ararat country name. In fact, the mountains upon which Noah’s Ark rested were situated in Urartu-ArmeniaArarat country. But the Armenians were curious to know which was the mountain where Noah’s Arkrested in that country. The Armenians of the different provinces of UrartuArmenia-Ararat country composed different traditions; in this way they tried to show that the mountain upon which Noah’s Arkrested was situated in their province. In the traditions composed by the inhabitants of the Province Kordvats that mountain was Judi-Dagh. Pavstos Buzand, S. T. Yeremyan and G. Sargsyan followed that opinion. But in the traditions of the inhabitants of most of the provinces, Masis is considered to be that mountain because Masis was the highest mountain of the Country Urartu-ArmeniaArarat upon which rested Noah’s Ark and saved human race from the great flood. In later eras, after the V-VII centuries, Armenians influenced by the aforementioned names of their country, also called the mountain Masis in the name of Ararat, which carries the meaning of Urartu, as well as, is equivalent to the name, Armenia.
øÜܲ

Summary

Vahe G. Arakelyan

In the article the inter-influences of Armenian and Persian are studied, which are first and foremost conditioned by their etymological linkages. Special attention has been paid to the linguistic generalizations between Armenian and Persian broadly dating back centuries, which are expressed in different grammatical structures.

The author also explores the deep traces of the one-facet influence of Persian on Iranian-Armenian dialects. The Armenians dealing with the Iranians not only enriched their word stock with new words, but also made everyday usage copies of Persian word combinations and expressions and, on the other hand, they matched some of the Armenian phonological and grammatical elements with the Persian ones.

Investigatory Comparative Assessments from the Perspective of a 90-year interval

Summary

Ararat M. Hakobyan
In the article, the viewpoints and evaluations expressed in Soviet, Diasporian and Post-Soviet Armenian historiography on the 1921 February Revolt have undergone thorough investigation.

In the previous decades Armenian historiography gave diverse, sometimes contradictory standpoints, viewpoints, interpretations and evaluations of this important event.

On the one hand, in the Soviet-Armenian historiography the February Revolt was qualified as a reckless attempt of the revolutionists and mauserists, and on the other hand, Armenian Revolutionary Federation historiographers and authors presented it as a voluntary pan-national revolution. The position of Soviet-Armenian historiography was also protected in a certain consistent way by the Democratic Hunchakians, Democratic Liberals and Communist authors of the Diaspora.

By making comparative assessments between the two contradictory standpoints of post-soviet elucidations and revolutionists’ interpretations that exist in Armenian historiography, and on the basis of diverse documents, old and new testimonies, memoranda, press, etc. in the article, an attempt is being made to explain the real, factual, impartial image of the February Revolt, to clarify the processes of its preparation, reasons, essence, the moving forces, stages, the influence of external factors, as well as other issues which up to now remain vague.

After the independence of Armenia the Armenian historiographical mind attempts to overcome the previous mistakes and stereotypes existing in Soviet and Diasporian Armenian historiography and to elaborate a scientifically grounded standpoint concerning the 1921 February Revolt.

Summary

Hayrapet G. Margaryan

The author states that Sebeos (VII century Armenian historian) speaking about the battle of “Plain of Geran” means the battle of Nersehapat which is well-known from the History of Ghazar Parpetsi.