By Aris Ghazinyan and John Hughes
ArmeniaNow reporters
Wednesday will be the fifth anniversary of the bloodiest day in the life of modern Armenia government.
On October 27, 1999, gunmen led by a delusional self-acclaimed revolutionary entered the National Assembly armed with automatic weapons which they turned on leaders of the Government of Armenia, killing eight.
The dead included Prime Minister Vazgen Sargsyan and Speaker of the Assembly, Karen Demirchyan – together, seen by most to represent a formidable power base that would unseat President Robert Kocharyan.
But within the few seconds that it took Nairi Hunanyan and his brother Karen to squeeze the triggers of their assault weapons, Armenia’s immediate political future was reshaped. The flawed and failed attempts by successors to Demirchyan and Sargsyan – including Demrichyan’s son, Stepan – in the 2003 presidential election and in this spring’s season of anti-government mass demonstrations, rightly led to speculation that Armenia’s political opposition died, too, on the floor of Parliament that October day.
While survivors of the attack were rehabilitated and the dead, including members of Armenia’s Security Council, were mourned, the republic itself was paralyzed.
Armenia entered the 21st century crippled and bleeding, limping on a political landscape reshaped by terror.
“All these years Armenian diplomacy has been handling the problem of restoring the shattered image of Armenia,” says Minister of Foreign Affairs Vardan Oskanian. “After the terrorists attack of the parliament our state appeared in an extremely unfavorable situation that couldn’t help but impact the country’s investment attractiveness, too.
“Actually, we spent three years dealing with rehabilitation issues, though we should have focused our attention principally on the Karabakh problem. Certainly, we seriously took up this problem, too, however, the substantial part of diplomatic resources was expended on restoring the country’s image.”
Anniversaries being opportunities for reflection, the events of that day, recalled, prompt speculation on how Armenia might be different on this milestone day, had the tragedy of five years ago not happened.
“It is common knowledge that the subjunctive mood is alien to history, but in this given case, I am sure the Karabakh problem would have been resolved today,” says Levon Ghazaryan, a well-known political analyst. “All the rest (of Armenia’s well being) would derive from that fact of paramount importance.”
With Yerevan in shock and shattered, there was little attention given to matters of regional and international concern. And from the shaky foundation and vengeance-seeking psyche of what remained of an Opposition, emerged a sort of “revenge politics” that is still at the heart of today’s political debate.
“But for October 27, the Armenian political field would be on a higher ideological and intellectual level,” says political scientist Karen Asryan. “A result of the parliamentary killings was the filling of Vazgen Sargsyan and Karen Demirchyan’s ‘vacancies’ by their closest relatives who had no political experience and their actions were moved overwhelmingly by considerations of revenge.
“This very atmosphere permeated for many years the internal political arena of Armenia. As a result, the role of particularly political structures was minimized. As a consequence, the political methods of solving problems were substituted with apolitical forms.”
And the political process suffered.
“The atmosphere of total distrust affected the approaches of the opposition,” says political analyst Ruben Margaryan. “This led to an exclusively nervous situation in the period of the parliamentary and presidential elections, which, in its turn, affected their quality. As for the foreign political atmosphere, let’s remember the statement of Ross Wilson, the U.S. Ambassador in Baku: ‘Before October 27, the sides of the Karabakh conflict were pretty close to achieving a compromise’.”
And while the Karabakh issue reasonably became less urgent, politicians jostled about on an unsteady Ship of State while economic life in Armenia, too, was in troubled waters as a result of October 27.
“In this matter the issue has two aspects,” says Aleksander Tovmasyan, a researcher of the October 27 case. “On the one hand, it would be naïve to think that the tandem of Vazgen Sargsyan-Karen Demirchyan was able to solve any economic issues. However, on the other hand, the events in the parliament had a negative impact on the process of economic transformations.
“Instead of handling economic problems the Armenian authorities and the society as a whole for over three years wasted time, emotions and energy on smoothing over and revealing internal political contradictions. In this perspective, Armenia, surely, lost a lot of time.”
It is time, apologists for the current administration would argue, that has more than been made up by the 12.5 percent GDP growth that was a major plank of President Robert Kocharyan’s re-election campaign platform.
But was that growth (inflated considerably by money pumped into the economy by billionaire Kirk Kirkorian’s highway and cultural centers redevelopment project) more than Armenia might have expected or less than it would have seen had that October 27 been just another autumn day on Baghramian Avenue?
“Without October 27, the current economic state of Armenia would mainly depend on Vazgen Sargsyan’s policy regarding corruption,” says political analyst Tigran Gevorgyan. “The Armenian Prime Minister, it is known, had declared war against corruption, as a result of which either him or the corruption would possibly be eliminated.
“In this respect, we shouldn’t forget about the so-called ‘Albert Gore’s list’ indicating the most corrupted persons of Armenia. The U.S. vice-president had handed that list to Armenia’s Prime Minister Vazgen Sargsyan, and there are grounds to be confident Sargsyan waged war against those indicated on the list. Generally, those were people from his own circle. It is unknown where that list is now. Nonetheless, it is obvious that if Vazgen Sargsyan succeeded in the struggle against corruption, the current economic state of Armenia would be quite better off.”
Karabakh, international image, and economic development aside, there are scores of analysts and probably millions of average citizens who agree with the assessment of one Yerevan academician . . .
“But for October 27 1999, Armenia today would have a different president, in the name of Vazgen Sargsyan,” says historian Vardan Mkhitaryan. “However, on the other hand, the political processes in the country were developing in a controversial way. All the controversies accumulated during the period of Armenia’s independence reached a climax in mid-1999, and in this aspect the outflow of political energy, in this or another form, was inevitable.”
Yorumlar kapatıldı.