Revisiting Culture, Education and Statehood

The culture of statehood has two distinct but interrelated sides: The conceptual/ideological side, whereby the importance of statehood manifests itself in the notion of self-governance and independence; and the governance side, the more practical aspects of running the state apparatus and governance. i.e., forming an effective government. One without the other is not only useless, but also dangerous. In Armenia, we have had one or the other in various periods since independence, but rarely both together.

It pains me to mention that what is going on in Armenia at present is further proof (and a consequence) of the lack of a culture of sovereign statehood. The quality of the political discourse, exemplified by an abundance of negatives with relatively few constructive ideas being aired (which get ignored), the alarming absence of accountability after the largest national losses of lives, territory and geopolitical position of the country since Independence, the persistent arrogance of a defeated and blatantly incompetent administration, the refusal of the opposition groups to accept their share of the responsibility for the complacency, negligence and mistakes of the past thirty years which haunt the country until today, the total disregard for the public’s right to know the details of what went wrong in the war, the failure of the National Assembly to put the national interest and the constitution above all other affiliations, the destructive conflict between the prime minister and the top leadership of the armed forces, the utter indifference of the entire political elite and the intellectual class to the destructive divisions in the country, are testimony that saving the sovereignty of Armenia is, at best, only secondary in the minds of both the politicians and the public.

A major, nation-wide paradigm shift is required to alter this psyche. But that will take time. We cannot afford to wait. It will also require a critical catalyst. Which at present we do not have.

In the short-term, until a process of nation-wide change is set in motion, the damage control has to come from a well overdue new generation of leadership. This would be a group with an understanding and vision of statehood and provide the Armenian public with a much needed third political alternative. Obviously, such a group will not have experienced the tradition of statehood firsthand and will suffer from the same lack of experience in that sphere as the past political leadership. So, it needs to be a generation that has learned the most relevant lessons from our own history, as well as the history of other nations who have overcome similar handicaps. It needs to intrinsically understand the significance of nurturing a sovereign Armenian state. It needs to have unquestioned operational loyalty to the state, irrespective of political/party affiliation, and be fully and solely dedicated to the vision of a strong Armenian state; it needs to be composed of professionals, meritocrats, solution oriented creative thinkers, who can think outside the box; it needs to be a group of individuals who have managed their egos, and are not after personal gain, power or fame; it needs to be a passionately nationalistic and at the same time a worldly group, incorruptible, mission oriented and ruthless in the pursuit of its mission.

Do enough people with these qualifications exist in Armenia and the diaspora? I believe they do. The real challenge is that they come together, develop an articulate a coherent agenda, secure buy-in from the public, and set an entirely new standard of governance and strategic thinking in Armenia. This needs to be done now. A group like this will not only manage the short-term damage control, but also act as the catalyst for the longer-term change in the national mindset.

As for the more fundamental long-term solution, it starts with the education system. Even after independence, the education establishment in Armenia did not recognize, let alone meet, the challenge of nurturing statehood, state security and citizenship in students. A major overhaul of the educational system is required.

At the outset, let’s recognize that the education system should be based on the simple principle that human creativity, unlike natural resources, never gets depleted or devalued. It is renewable, and much more than renewable, because it tends to not just renew itself, but multiply itself exponentially. It knows no limits. It achieves what conventional wisdom deems impossible. It surpasses its own assumed limitations. There is no stronger force in nature. Any educational system that fails to impart this notion to its student body, fails Armenia.

One key addition to the national curriculum at the elementary and high school levels should be courses in civics — rights and responsibilities of citizenship, the constitution and the rationale behind it, the nature and role of military service, branches of government and the logic behind them, the concept of accountability in public office, the role of the courts, examples of good and bad governance with the consequences of each for the state and the nation. We need to nurture citizens who are aware, beyond the hollow rhetoric of “proud” citizens of the past few years. National awareness, patriotism (beyond clichés), civic duties, culture of citizenship should start from childhood and grow and mature into adolescence. The education system should be geared to address specific problems faced by a small country under constant military and often existential threat.

A key requirement for the above, in addition to rigorous courses in all modern sciences and disciplines, is the proper teaching of Armenian history, which must go beyond its current emphasis on memorization of dates and events, and into historical and geopolitical lessons learned as they affected the Armenian state or as they prevented the creation of one. The present curriculum in schools in Armenia imparts no real sense of history to the students. In the past 30 years, I have made a habit of talking to schoolchildren of all ages in Armenia — it started with members of my own large extended family and soon extended to the children and grandchildren of friends — in Yerevan, and various villages in Vayots Dzor, Ashtarak, and Aparan. They can generally recite dates and events, and a few critical milestones in Armenian history, but they have been taught next to nothing about the significance of the history they have memorized, nor the overarching historical context within which the specific historical events that they cite have occurred.

The overhaul of the education system entails a fundamental paradigm shift in instruction and testing — away from standards and established systems of memorization. The dynamism, fluidity and creativity that Armenia should have in its economic and business model should be introduced in the education system. Established practices, standards and routines are deadly. Learning through experimentation, pushing the limits of the imagination, critical questioning and reasoning, improvisational skills (important both in military and civilian life), sense of mission, risk taking, are key. Quantitative stats alone — for example, number of schools, teacher/student ratios, etc., — are not indicative of quality of education. Quality and inventiveness of instruction methodology depend on how well the teachers understand their mission and how well they are trained.

The combination of the short-term catalytic trigger of a new generation of leaders with the fundamental overhaul of the education system could unleash a virtuous cycle of change in Armenia, which over time could spill into the culture, practice and legislation of civil service, thus transforming both the structure and modus operandi of the government. That would constitute a true revolution, because it would represent a change in the mindset of the nation. Only then Armenia will have a chance to finally uproot the post-Soviet oligarchic system and replace it with an effective, functioning state.

Otherwise, there is a good chance that we won’t be able to keep what we rebuild after the last war — even if we succeed to rebuild something worth keeping.