In a February 7 interview with the newspaper Chorrord Inknishkhanutyun, Armenian National Congress (HAK) leader Levon Ter-Petrosyan declared that the time had come to transform the alliance into a unified political party.

Ter-Petrosyan said that the issue had been discussed for some time by forces that had remained "faithful" to HAK.

A mere two days later, Ter-Petrosyan and other HAK activists filed a petition with the Ministry of Justice to register the new party aptly called the Armenian National Congress. Later, it was revealed that the new party would be comprised of the unification of three parties in the HAK alliance and a grouping of activists.

We also found out that the new HAK party wouldn't be outside the HAK alliance, as a result of its dissolution, but rather it would constitute one of the political forces included in the alliance.

These developments, which at first glance, hint at nothing out of the ordinary, nevertheless conceal two important factors. The first is that even while Ter-Petrosyan was announcing the plan to transform the HAK into a party and that discussions on the issue were on-going, everything had already been decided. The HAK leader wasn't proposing a plan of action to his allied forces as a way out from the unmanageable dead-end that had arisen within the HAK alliance, but rather he was proclaiming the decision to turn HAK into a party as a fait accompli; one he had taken alone.

The concept of reaching a consensus on issues, allegedly practiced by HAK in its decision-making process, is nowhere to be found.

Ter-Petrosyan clearly understood that such a decision could not have been reached either through consensus building or a simple majority vote simply because the primary and majority forces in HAK would have rejected it. In other words, the HAK minority led by Ter-Petrosyan pushed through this decision deciding the fate of the alliance by disregarding the opinion of the majority; in essence deciding in its stead.

And this took place within the ranks of a political movement that always presented itself as a champion of democratic values and a force that practised such values both internally and in the public sphere.

With this decision, Ter-Petrosyan has proven for the umpteenth time is just another routine Armenian political organization (or more correctly Limited Liability Corporation), where everything starts and ends with the individual decisions of the "boss". From this perspective, HAK presents a greater danger than those who are sincere in the fact that they don't hide this character trait. HAK, on the other hand, has shown itself to be hypocritical throughout, by proclaiming one set of values while practicing their opposite.

The second important factor is that what is occurring isn't the structural and organization modification of the Congress, as spoken about by Ter-Petrosyan in the aforementioned interview, but the creation of yet another Armenian political party under its name. More correctly, the Armenian Pan-National Movement, by metamorphosing into HAK, is attempting to rehabilitate itself in light of new political realities. By absorbing two smaller parties within it, HAK is striving to build a bridge to enter the new political arena after the presidential elections. As the Eastern proverb says, "the mountain shook and a mouse was born".

But this, of course, isn't important. In the end, it is clear that a decision lacking consensus couldn't have led to anything else. What is important is that Ter-Petrosyan has provoked, at minimum, the groundwork for the break-up of HAK; by dividing the forces and individuals in it from the "faithful remaining in the Congress".

If the initiative to create such a party is implemented within the confines of just three forces, this means that, according to Ter-Petrosyan, they are the ones to be considered the remaining HAK faithful. The criteria for making such divisions, is in fact the personal perception of Ter-Petrosyan. Those who support his political views, decisions and adopted tactics are the faithful, Those who question, let alone oppose them, are the unfaithful; i.e., the step children.

Thus, by doing so, Ter-Petrosyan has turned HAK into a personification of himself, with all the negative consequences that result. He has given the other forces a simple three-way choice – Either they join the ranks of the faithful by becoming members of the HAK party; either they reconcile themselves with the status of the unfaithful, meekly accepting all the future individual decisions of Ter-Petrosyan that will be adopted in the name of HAK; or else they will have to exhibit enough self-respect to pull out of the alliance.

Such inclinations within the ranks of the "step children" have yet to be seen. Perhaps they are still waiting to understand what Ter-Petrosyan is driving at. However, at the same time, the inclination to adapt is evident; something these forces have gradually learnt during the five years of HAK's existence. If this is the case, then these forces are merely engaged in conscious self-deception.

The problem, of course, isn't pulling out of HAK, which would seem to be the most natural in the current situation. His is so because from this perspective the founders of the HAK party are simply subjecting the others to provocation. To adapt to the realities being imposed means to silently accept and become a servant of the newly imposed rules of the game.

But what is most dramatic and even tragic is that as a consequence of all this, HAK is automatically rolling towards the precipice, even though, on the surface at least, it appears that the forces in it are striving to prevent HAK from such a fate. This is because what is taking place is a simple distortion of values. Internal one-man rule is being presented under the veil of democracy and diversity of opinion. The preservation of HAK's "form" has become a more important value than the ideals and fundamental objectives that once formed its core.

One can only lament the degree of degradation now afflicting an alliance born out of the democratic movement; an alliance that gave rise to such hope in society in the not too distant past.