Demoyan Warns of Dire Situation in Armenia

Domestically, Demoyan feels that after Armenia voted for a parliamentary system of government last December, the forthcoming April parliamentary elections will be “a crucial landmark date for Armenians and for all of us—this is the fate of the Republic that we will secure for future years.”

He said that the armed attack and hostage situation by the fringe political group Sasna Tsrer (The Daredevils of Sasoon) for two weeks over the summer was part of “new disturbing developments.” He noted that the majority was protesting and sided, actively or passively, with the attackers though their actions were illegal and resulted in fatalities. He concluded that “if former combatants will try to solve issues in Armenia, this will be just starting the end of statehood.”

The gap between the government and society is really dangerous, Demoyan said, as the government remains silent. Its only means of communication with the people is the police.

Demoyan openly declared that government corruption is rampant, but he said that “a little hope” exists with the new government and its appointments. Yet there are still some of the same people remaining in government. Aside from corruption, Demoyan pointed out that the external debt is huge and the economic situation is “very, very serious.”

The most serious threat facing Armenia, according to Demoyan, is the depopulation of Armenia through emigration. He said that nearly one and a half million Armenians have left already, and if the economic situation is not ameliorated, this could trigger new emigration and endanger the existence of the country.

Demoyan said that the main weapon in Armenia’s hands is its human resources, which are now leaving the country. Secondly, Armenia must be strong internally. Demoyan once told the Armenian president that the problem with Azerbaijan cannot be solved with more or better weapons. The only way is for Armenia to become a more democratic state, respecting human rights and with rule of law leaving no room for corruption. This will make it a more powerful country than authoritarian and corrupt Azerbaijan, he said. One hope for the future is a new generation of Armenian decision makers, but it is not clear how they will overcome the entrenched present system and come to power, he added.

Demoyan concluded by examining what the diaspora can do. The situation in Armenia was important for Armenians living in the republic as well as those abroad. He said that recent efforts of several individuals to criticize with public letters or petitions were not sufficient. The diaspora should be a form of leverage or a factor in triggering change in a positive direction in Armenia. He stressed that involvement is necessary to help create change, but not efforts to control. In other words, agendas from the US or Russia should not be imported.

One way, Demoyan said, would be by involving diasporan structures in Armenia through a permanent pan-Armenian commission as the successor to the Armenian Genocide centennial commission.

Demoyan elaborated on his ideas during the extensive and freewheeling question-and-answer session. He pointed out that there was no serious political opposition in Armenia, but for the most part temporary opposition figures who disappear after the elections. He said, with his typical humor, that “we don’t want people sitting in parliament with nicknames.” Those with nicknames are usually criminal or Mafia-type figures. If these people are reelected next year, this will be a big problem, he said.

He added that election fraud is a common occurance. He feared greater violence if the upcoming elections were seen as fixed and unfair as the preceding ones.

Corruption, he told another questioner, emanates not just from the Soviet legacy, or the influence of former Karabagh combatants. A lack of official punishment for misdeeds is combined with tolerance or acceptance in common society, Demoyan said. Demoyan declared that he did not want to either target or praise the government, but rather to show directions which could help resolve the situation as well as prevent violence.

The audience generally responded in a sympathetic manner to Demoyan’s talk. Some praised his openness. A few gave positive examples of change in Armenia, but most seemed pessimistic about the possibility for change. A handful called for drastic action. One suggested total withdrawal of diasporan support to Armenia until the government changes, while another felt that armed violence was necessary to carry out a revolution, including the assassination of Armenian “traitors” as in Operation Nemesis after the Armenian Genocide.

After answering many audience questions, Demoyan made a final statement: “I am here to give a bold and serious message…for all of us. I am one of you. I am not an extraordinary person who can identify or make historical predictions. That is not my task. … But I feel I fulfilled one minimum obligatory task. I raised the issues, I broke the silence. … We have to raise our voices, at the least, and then to act.”

He concluded, “We have to draw this roadmap for bringing Armenia back from that swamp that we are now in after 25 years. If not, the final result will unfortunately be predictable. We can lose our state. This is not an exaggeration…. All the possibilities are in our hands, individually or on a group level.”