By: Edgar Martirosyan

It is often said that history tends to repeat itself.  I have always thought of this maxim as representing a more complex and comprehensive analysis of history, both through space and time, wherein we tend to forget the lessons of the past and repeat the mistakes of our predecessors over – and over – again. 

 In essence, as I understand it, our collective memory will unfailingly succumb to itself; eventually.  Nowhere, however, does this adage resonate more true than in the political arena of our young Republic.  A mere score has passed since independence, yet the lessons not learned from continuous mistakes in that rather insignificant period of time overwhelm the modest progresses made.

Robert Kocharian’s ascent to authority initiated a period of aggressive consolidation of power, where any legitimate opposition to the serving administration and its supporters was systematically eradicated, be it politically or otherwise. 

While the opposition to the president and the Armenian Republican Party withered, a resilient and chauvinistic kleptocracy extended its sway overArmeniato suffocating proportions.  The National Assembly, which at least (albeit imperfectly) counterbalanced the power of the executive branch during the Ter-Petrossian years, was reconstructed in accordance with the whims of the new executive.  In less than ten years time,Armeniawas left with a token opposition – seven seats (out of 131) for the Heritage Party. 

This stagnant state of affairs took a drastic turn in late 2007.   After a decade of silence, Ter-Petrossian’s return to the political arena sparked a national movement the proportions of which the nation had not seen since 1991.  A sense of urgency seemed to engulf the ruling class.  Kocharian’s kleptocracy had its back to the wall; the February 2008 presidential election could only have but one outcome, else the oligarchic state risked certain demise.  In the wake of the election, Ter-Petrossian’s supporters took to the streets in peaceful protest against the falsified results.  March 1st, of course, only widened the chasm between the people and the ruling elite. 

But none of this is news.  It is merely an accounting of too familiar facts which have yet to serve as an impetus for change inArmenia.  Three years and some months later, the overwhelming wave of momentum of 2008 has dramatically dwindled to a mere current, with continued promises of deliverance continually postponed. 

 While we can point the finger in every which direction, it is high time that all of the opposition forces – particularly the ones that matter: the ANC, Heritage, and Sardarapat – start pointing the finger at themselves. 

I believe the Sargsian regime is standing on its last leg, and a unified opposition can pose a more potent threat to the current kleptocracy, which has been reduced to banking on current divisions amongst opposition forces for its continued existence.

But how can we get there?  For its part, and despite its continued efforts in creating a cooperative format with other opposition forces, the ANC needs to revisit its troubled relationships with some its former members and sympathizers, especially Heritage and Sardarapat.  The differences between these entities, while significant, become trivial in comparison to the alternative – an illegitimate president and the kleptocracy that put him there.  Despite their continued insistence otherwise, common ground between the opposition forces is not only possible, but probable so long as the number one priority remains the same: liberatingArmenia from its current leadership.        

The national movement sparked by Ter-Petrossian’s return to the political arena was a spontaneous reaction borne of the people and for the people against the continued injustices imposed upon it by a renegade regime.  And as such, the ANC must embrace the notion that the opposition does not belong to any one group.  In fact, for it to truly come to fruition, it must remain independent of association other than the common objective of political, social, and economic reform.  At bottom, the ANC is merely a conduit, and not an endpoint, through which the disgruntled majority expresses itself.

Sardarapat, for its part, needs to understand that while society as a whole can benefit from its uncompromising principles, it largely remains an ideologically-driven fringe organization not apt for sociopolitical gains if left to its own devices.  It must, at last, accept that mainstream Armenian society is far more receptive to the ANC’s chosen means of constitutional political struggle, then its insistence on a revolutionary resistance.  With the right alliance, Sardarapat can truly invigorate the opposition’s base.  However, it is doomed to fizzle out if it refuses to cooperate with the the mainstream opposition movement lead by the ANC.  In this regard, if Sardarapat continues to insist on challenging the ANC’s credibility as an opposition force, it will begin to fulfill the role of spoiler more than anything else, and its message will fail to resonate with society in ways which it can in a broader alliance with the mainstream opposition.

To its credit, Heritage remains the one true presence that is sufficiently sociopolitical in nature.  While at core the organization is political, its platform continues to place a strong emphasis on social issues, and its deputies are regular staples of public social grievances (not just political protests).  However, Heritage does not enjoy the wide support the ANC does, and has traditionally failed to spearhead the kind of opposition movement that the ANC dived head-first into.  Nor does it have the political clout that the ANC has been able to establish.  In fact, what Ter-Petrossian and the ANC have accomplished in three years time, Raffi Hovannisian and Heritage have failed to do so in over a decade, despite all good faith efforts.  While it continues to enjoy widespread support among certain core constituencies, Heritage will not register any meaningful gains unless it accepts its shortcomings, puts an end to the divisive rhetoric of some of its delegates (particularly, as it pertains to the ANC and Ter-Petrossia), and compliments the ANC in ways only it can do so. 

This article does justice to neither the virtues nor shortcomings of any of these organizations.  Nor does it care to.  It is high time that these forces put aside trifles and personal spats, hold their own version of dialogue, and overcome the trivial differences dramatized by all sides.  With principles of arbitration and dispute resolution, I believe the substantive differences between the ANC, Heritage and Sardarapat can be worked out. If unified in their vision thatArmeniasimply cannot prosper under the Kocharian-Sargsian style of governance, and that regime change is first and foremost on the agenda, then there is no logical impediment to their cooperation with one another.   

Examples set today will become the foundation upon which our state is built tomorrow; hopefully, long after our current leaders are gone.  True, history will repeat itself.  But where the lessons to be learned can address some of the shortcomings of the past, mistakes will be repeated (hopefully) eventually, and not immediately.