Hetq spoke with cultural critic Hrach Bayadyan about what changes, if any, occurred in Armenia during the past year.

-Mr. Bayadyan, what do you believe were the significant milestones in the year just ended? What achievements or shortcomings can you point to?

-I don’t think it makes much sense to speak of specific incidents. Sure, some can point to the resignation of Yerevan’s mayor, or the recent ministerial shake-ups, as important developments. Then too, there are certain developments related to Turkish-Armenian relations or the Karabakh conflict. But, if we take a sober look at these, there really aren’t many developments that can be considered truly life shattering.

To be honest, I don’t think such developments can occur in Armenia. I can comment more about the general atmosphere and sentiments that have taken hold in Armenia during the past few years and which, perhaps, have come to the fore more visibly in 2010. Even those who speak about so-called systematic changes really have no clue as to what such a thing means.

It is my impression that the essential development that has taken place within the past 3 years is the gradual disappearance of intolerance, the indifference towards injustice, on the one hand, and on the other, optimism; that could have survived as popular sentiments.

They have withered away to the extent that they are no longer tangible, neither in the consciousness of individuals or, dare I say, in the feelings of individual social strata or groups. I would posit that what has taken place was a near total reconciliation with the reality in Armenia.

-Do you mean conformism?

-I use the term “conformism” in a more active sense. One can come to terms with reality without attempting to cooperate with the conditions it lays down. Conformism is a process of reconciling with and acquiescence to existing values. It’s the point in time when a person who has reconciled with reality begins to say – fine, if this is life then we must also take something from here. In other words, conformism is a much more active behavior. Even those people who had been discontented reconciled with this reality.

What took place in 2008 was an uprising against the social system that was formed during the post-Soviet period, beginning at the end of the 1990s; the Kocharyan decade. However, it is evident that there is no alternative.

Those who think that there are radical methods to change this reality are naïve. Firstly, the social order (specific values, predilections and behavioral rules) have been mostly formed during the past two decades and the essential trends continue to remain the same. Society, with its prime principles, standards and values, finds itself in the dominating model. If alternatives existed, or were thought to have existed, just three years ago, they have been exhausted today.

-On one occasion, Levon Ter-Petrosyan said that the people had already drunk from the cup of freedom and that it would be difficult to silence them.

-Nevertheless, during the last three years, the people who supposedly breathed freedom never rebelled, they merely continued on. Those memories of freedom have greatly dimmed to the point where we cannot expect anything. While the people may have tasted freedom, I do not like such pathetic explanations. His statement perhaps had a more rhetorical significance.

Understandably, there are political figures that periodically forecast the downfall of the political system. Such statements are ludicrous. Anyone with any self-respect shouldn’t utter such things. It’s amazing that they forget what they have said one or two years ago, or even a few months ago. In my articles of the past few years, I have always touched upon such an outcome, if not clearly formulated, in the sense that ambitions and illusions no longer exist.

Today, everything has a local nature to it – someone has become a weightlifting champion another plays the “dudouk” really well. That’s to say there are no expectations on the national level (government, economy, sciences or culture), even though they shy away from saying so. I disregard all sorts of “optimists” since the matter at hand isn’t a question of optimism or pessimism, but rather the absence of the knowledge needed to see the reality of Armenia in a global context. In that process, Armenia could take certain small steps but there is a ceiling above that cannot be breeched.

This came clearly to the fore in 2010. In my estimation, real social change is not on the horizon in Armenia in the long-term. Perhaps it is not appropriate that I say such things on the dawn of the New Year. But since you asked, this is my response.

-And in the short-run? What can we expect, say, in 2011?

-I’d gather these are the traditional questions asked during the holiday period; on the eve of the New Year. You should go and ask government officials and state-approved intellectuals; not me. I have no expectations. I only have expectations of myself and of those individuals that I believe in; those who set down goals and work towards achieving them. First of all, no one listens to what I have to say. Second, this is a job for others, not me. A person should talk about goals that he or she can realistically achieve.

-Don’t any of these players in positions of power instill any confidence?

-On the state political or economic level - absolutely not. It’s not that they all are corrupt, opportunists, etc. This is a given. It’s just that it’s not a matter based on individuals. All the models – the ruler, rich man, thriving entrepreneur, and the conformist – have long since been well established. I’ve already said that there are no real alternatives. Anyone who enters this framework can’t bring anything new; they have to play by the same rules.

They are forced to rob, plunder, deceive and, in general, to mouth rhetorical platitudes about the future of the country, at best. Given these conditions, the best we can hope for, again with reservation, is that small alternative environments will slowly form in Armenia or spaces where other goals and values dominate, including clusters of individuals tasked with intellectual pursuits.

These would be gathering places for individuals that have a good handle on global affairs and developments, who possess contemporary knowledge, and who don’t bamboozle themselves and otherwise with starry-eyed “optimism”… Sure, today people can take to the streets and protest about the pension they haven’t received or about their crumbling house; even about sham elections and other injustices.

There might even be brawls with the police. But the wave of social unrest that we witnessed in the fall of 2007 and which ended on March 1, 2008, in my humble opinion, won’t be repeated.

-Why not? Is it due to the political opposition or is it the inevitable outcome?

-It’s easy to say that what happened back then was inevitable, that the society wasn’t prepared, etc. I don’t want to affix all the blame on the opposition, but I believe there should have been more radical leaders in the opposition camp than Levon Ter-Petrosyan and with more authority than say Nikol Pashinyan. For example, someone like Vano Siradeghyan.

Now, in hindsight, it’s difficult to say what the outcome would have been if the opposition risked it all and confronted the government head-on. I’m not saying that the country would have entered into a stage of change if that had happened. Perhaps, however, it might have given rise to certain slow-moving tendencies for change, to a slight opening of space where other possibilities could be explored. It’s not that the society would change with the election of Levon Ter-Petrosyan; the officials in charge wouldn’t be all that different.

But I believe that the social fervor at the time could have lead to certain institutional changes in the realm of educational and cultural policies that gradually, over many years, could have borne real fruit. All this held out hope for a degree of optimism, for certain expectations which, if given astute government policies, could have actually changed a thing or two in this inert quagmire of ours.

-Are we sinking ever deeper into this stagnant quagmire you speak of?

-I would prefer you don’t speak of “we”. It’s because I don’t see myself as a part of that society you refer to. I just can’t utter the word “we”. I am opposed to a great many things and this attitude is a part of my lifestyle, my daily though process and work.

This is the reason I still believe that it’s possible to have a certain intellectual commitment in Armenia (not a strata) that won’t take the easy road of conformity; that’s to say active compliance, which was the case during the Yerevan Municipal Council elections. There were people who up till then kept a certain distance and weren’t cooperating. But they realized that if they didn’t act they wouldn’t have a second chance.

If we are able to possess (when I say “we”, I refer to those who would have such commitment and not to Armenia or the “worldwide Armenian community” as the term is generally perceived) a new base of knowledge and localize it through educational and intellectual avenues, over the years it just might open some space for alternatives and new values. Maybe it all sounds like some fairytale.

-Not at all. It’s just that I think that change is around the corner.

-That’s the problem in a nutshell – everyone wants rapid change. No one is willing to undertake difficult, long-term work to achieve it. They all want things to improve overnight so they can continue to live comfortably and enjoy themselves. By doing so, you wash your hands of any responsibility. Who will do the work necessary if not each and every one of us?

Those who want to change things overnight really mess-up everything; they aren’t in it for the long haul and sit by idly. What changes do you want and from whom?

There are no changes in the sciences and educational sector. New knowledge is not getting through and there is no one out there willing to perform the hard work to obtain it. Neither is there much of a desire to do so. The dominant goal is to live as well as possible in the here and now. That’s all.

Recently, I read an announcement made by the Ministry of Education and Science that they are preparing a “Logo” programming language for kids to be taught in schools in Armenia and the diaspora. It was reported that the initial preparatory work was carried out by the Kvant College and the Ministry.

But way back in 2001 (I don’t remember the exact date), I prepared the first “Logo” language Armenian educational manual. And it was a joint undertaking with the same Kvant College. I hope they won’t forget this fact. Back then, the manual didn’t get much exposure. Years later, they translated information texts from Russian originals. Whether they were good or not, isn’t clear.

The “Logo” manual remained on the shelf and now, ten years later, it all of a sudden becomes a necessity. I am at a loss to understand why. And what will it change? Ten years ago it might have made a small difference.

-Is it too late now?

Let them learn it; there’s no real harm. But is it possible in today’s Armenia to achieve those goals for which that language was crafted and perfected in the United States and the related instructional methodology and educational paradigm? This instructional method specifically teaches people to think critically and spurs the creative juices. Does the Armenia of today need such things?

-OK. But can you point to anything noteworthy in the country’s cultural life in 2010?

-Sure, there were some good things that also had dual meanings. Do you get what I mean? Good cultural developments have a way of gilding this depressed situation in a favorable light, of concealing the quagmire. Sure Placido Domingo came to Yerevan and Ian Gillan of Deep Purple fame sang for us. Once again, the Golden Apricot Film Festival breathed some life into the cultural scene for a few days…Such events make our provincial life in Armenia a bit more bearable, and occasionally even enchanting.