Armenia is witnessing the dawning of a period of gloom. The indications of this are numerous - the incessant persecution of those in any way linked to the Movement, the continued labeling of a “certain segment of the nation” and its leaders, the detention of people either strolling, reading or playing chess along Northern Avenue and the interrogation of schoolchildren participating in local protests in Vanatur.

 It particularly manifests itself in the increase in the number of those speaking on behalf of the nation and those either making pleas, sounding the alarm or wildly ranting in the name of the nation. Even during the days of the State of Emergency the pages of the press were open to them, as well as the television and radio outlets.

Suddenly, one day they (those who now speak on behalf of the nation) discovered that in “our nation” there was a 21% segment of our politically active electorate that had been “zombified”, who were “suffering from memory loss and who were driven by the rage to “destroy”. This 21% group had the potential to betray the nation and they were overwhelmed with “righteous anger” regarding this fact.

Here are some examples of the language employed by those speaking on behalf of the nation. “We call on all patriotic forces to struggle against the movement of Levon Ter-Petrosyan that is detrimental to the nation”; “We must create a patriotic and a national opposition” (the words of G. Sargsyan and Hayk Babukhyan); “…Azerbaijan is overjoyed that Levon Ter-Petrosyan has succeeded in splitting the Armenian nation into pieces, of breaking its backbone. This is treason. And today, I am even more concerned that the events that have taken place can have much more severe consequences in terms of national preservation than we can imagine today” (Levon Melik-Shahnazaryan). In a word, patriotism, or more correctly, love of one’s nation, has again become the fashion of the day.

What has evolved is something akin to a post-socialist form of post-modernism where everything is referenced from the Soviet-era without distinction (the formula sometimes used is, “socialist in form, national in content”; a formula which has been turned completely around from the original). As a result, we have witnessed everything from     widespread interrogations and arrests, to people being called “traitors to the nation” and extending to a variety of absurd reminisces like “the years of stagnation”. There are of course differences between what is taking place now and the past. The dissidents of today have still not been carted off to the psycho ward and for the most part it has been sufficient to label them as “victims of psychological diversion” or “individuals who have been lobotomized”. During the Soviet era people were tracked down for reading books that were banned. Today, the reading of books at certain locations is banned. On the other hand, it’s not clear why they don’t interrogate the school kid from Gyumri who’s donated 100 drams of his milk money to the GALA TV fundraiser or why they don’t arrest the villager who walks several miles to Gyumri to donate a portion of his meager pension to that same fundraiser. For aren’t these actions equally subversive as the others?

It’s been evident for some time now that sociology in Armenia has become a “pre-election science”. What’s new is the use of psychology in the post-election phase, to explain everything that sociology couldn’t predict or foresee in the first place. Putting it another way, if Armenian sociology explains the “norms” then the need was felt for psychology and psychologists to interpret the dangerous “deviations” or “anomalies” not accounted for. “They accept all gods without question. It’s a form of hypnosis which leads to destruction” (Karen Nalchajyan). The victory of Serzh Sargsyan, in these terms, was sociological, and that of Levon Ter-Petrosyan was psychological (with a negative connotation).

It’s really not important who started the whole campaign of psychological “explanations”, but in the February 21st edition of “Azg”, on the day after the first public rally following the election, there were already hints of the psychological commentary to follow in the questions posed by reporter Susanna Margaryan to a psychologist. Here are some examples of her questions: “Is it possible that a person imbued with the qualities of a leader could possess more undesirable (I won’t say dangerous) opinions than any other candidate possessing beneficial opinions but having a weaker charisma?”... “I propose to speak in general terms, about the mass suggestion imparted to the crowd”... “Is it possible to keep a large segment of the electorate inspired for a given length of time?”. And if Albert Nalchajyan’s answers didn’t clearly correspond to then expectations of the reporter, a few days later, on February 27th at the “Hayatsk” club, Karineh Nalchajyan, another psychologist, explained everything that was possible to explain. She particularly described the various psychological devices used to influence the consciousness of the society and explained that for ten years straight Levon Ter-Petrosyan had been working to master those devices.

On the other hand, psychologist Samvel Khudoyan had the following to say in response to the same reporter from “Azg” - “Such manipulation can be achieved by anyone who wishes to exploit another for his own ambitions. Such forms of manipulation are carried out during the elections of any given country. The only difference is that in the civilized world such crude manipulations (ballot stuffing, psychological intimidation and physical force) are replaced by more refined forms,

But such sober evaluations didn’t correspond to the official version of things. The Public Prosecutor asserted, for example, that psychological offensive had been continuously unleashed on the people attending the rallies. In similar cases the exact wording used speaks about “widespread memory loss” and “general hypnosis”. If government officials and political and party operatives didn’t have the opportunity of expressing sociological knowledge when making insights, then, the psychological factor was clearly abused in the post-election answers. All this ultimately reached ridiculously comical levels and in this regard the satirical comments of Matthew Bryce were quite tame.

I don’t know exactly how many people believe this psychological hypothesis but let me give one example of a similar type of reasoning. The reporter asks the following: “Most of the protestors had rallied around the former president not because they shared the ideas of Ter-Petrosyan but because they were displeased with the regime”. Levon Melik-Shahnazaryan replies that, “Yes, those hypnotized people followed Levon’s rhetoric, without listening to what he was saying.” It would appear that here the political commentator was just as “hypnotized” since he didn’t hear the question asked of him.

In all these explanations the Armenian language is imperceptibly being cheapened. Given the very modest capabilities of both the current president and the president-elect regarding literate Armenian speech, well thought out language and the mastery of oratory, diversionary means and manipulation are being declared.

Even while speaking about important social issues and the many other reasons (the corruption, injustice and illegality that is pervasive in the country) that could have fueled this social rebellion, they refuse to credit the Movement with any positive connotation. Here’s another quote from Karineh Nalchajyan, “The authorities were shaken and understood that things couldn’t continue as such, that the floodwaters could rise and destroy everything.»

If Ter-Petrosyan is completely being demonized and equated with evil, those around him are being stripped of the most basic of things, i.e., logic, the ability to resist manipulation and comprehending what’s best for the nation. According to Aram G. Sargsyan, «If they had used reason they would have all together ruled out the possibility of voting for Ter-Petrosyan.» Accordingly, the entire Movement was one big irrational outburst, devoid of any constructive attributes.

Of course, they forget to note the following clearly self-evident points in their explanations - the government's use of overwhelming force on the morning of March 1st in Freedom Square and that the division of society, its extreme polarization into the haves and the have-nots, took place during Kocharyan's term in office. It is understandable that they do not speak in terms of a civil society, democratic principles and other such things. The uniting factor is the nation - thus the terms «traitor of the nation», «national cleavage» and «defense of the national psyche». Ethnic commonality then, in and of itself, becomes the self-evident and absolute principle for unity. The term «we» is constantly bandied about and almost unconsciously used by many people - «our nation», «our people», «our shameful first day of spring», «our disgrace».... Again they forget to mention anything about the society. (Parenthetically, what is the function of sociology in all this when there is no society to speak of, where there isn't even a minimum of correlation to that type of society that gave birth to the science of sociology in the first place, to interpret that same society?)

On March 19th, the reporter from the daily newspaper «Azg» proposes another explanation. Taking into account that Ter-Petrosyan's «promise to destroy and demolish was sufficient to gather such a respectable portion of the electorate around him», he asks, «Where does the frenzy, either latent or manifest, spring from to arouse this intent «to destroy?» Answering his own question he explains, «The main reason is our centuries-old lack of statehood.»

I would like to refer to another excerpt from the above-mentioned interview given by Samvel Khudoyan in which he asserts that Armenians possess «traits specific to the Asiatic mentality». These are «servility, provincialism, the mind-set of the serf, toadyism». I have one important reservation. I believe that the «Asiatic mentality» isn't the reason. Rather, I would like to substitute the euphemism «lack of statehood» with a term accepted and understood by all - subjugation. It has been the Armenian people's longstanding colonial subjugation, rather than the «frenzy to destroy», that has instilled the above-mentioned qualities into many of our people, qualities that have been passed down through the generations. Thank God, however, these qualities are not found in everyone and in everybody.