CC BY
39ON THE DEVELOPMENTS OF YOUTH MOVEMENTS IN ARMENIA
Samvel Manukyan
The “No to Robbery" Public Movement
In May 2015 the public movement “No to Robbery!” emerged in Yerevan in relation to the electricity tariff rate hikes [1]. The movement demanded to annul the resolution by Public Services Regulatory Commission on increasing electricity tariffs in Armenia. Leaders and participants of the movement declared that their demands are purely economic and not political. As evidence to that, the members of movement who had blocked Baghramian Avenue in Yerevan since June 22, 2015, would expel various provocateurs of unknown origin and adventurers who make living by politics. The movement sustained high vigor and had a good development potential. Under a number of conditions it could have seriously shatter the domestic political stability of Armenia and lead to extremely undesirable effects.
Armenian authorities and especially the president clearly realized that there is a deep gap between the government and society and hence, they correctly assessed the chances of undesirable development of the movement that could turn unmanageable with internal resources, as well as the risks of the movement being used by external forces for their purpose.
' PhD in social sciences, Research Analyst at the Institute for Political and Sociological Consulting (IPSC).
23
S.Manukyan
<21st CENTURY», No2 (18), 2015
Therefore, the president suspended the resolution electricity tariff increase and ordered an international audit to investigate how justified is the price increase and to assess the effects of not increasing the tariffs. Most importantly, he announced that the audit will be conducted in as transparent manner as possible and consistent to this approach offered the movement members to form a group of representative that will take part in the audit.
And here it became clear that the youth movement is immature in terms of adequate communication with the government and consciousness about the overall context of their demands.
The youth movement rejected the offer to participate in the audit. One reason was that they assumed the authorities might fool them, if they participate in the audit. That is, among thousands of young people there was nobody who had enough knowledge to participate in the audit. The movement refused to accept responsibility of serious communication with the government and continued insisting on the demand that has become infantile after the offer of cooperation: annul the resolution and period. Second reason was that they did not think or were unable to bring in knowledgeable people, who supported the demands of the movement (actually, the whole country supported the demand except, perhaps, a specific small group of people who can make money on tariff hikes), did not depend on the government and were ready to take part in the audit as representatives of the public.
The movement split in two, as one part continued blocking the Baghramian Avenue and the other one moved to the Freedom Square of Yerevan.
After one week the police broke the blockade of the avenue. A few activists of the movement threatened to block other street of the city and a represen-
24
«21st CENTUR Y», № 2 (18), 2015
S.Manukyan
tative of a political party known for its tradition of hunger strikes and lie-down strikes started a lie-down hunger strike.
Two questions are relevant her:
1. Was such development of the movement unpredictable?
2. What other developments are possible in the strategic perspective?
The Formedness of Civic Worldview among the Youth
It is known that we live in a capitalist social system. Moreover, the only existing world-system1 is currently also capitalistic, while capitalism itself remains imperialistic and monopolistic. On the other hand, over the last 100 years among the industrial, commercial and financial capitals the financial one enjoys absolute dominance.
Currently, the phrase “market economy” is used instead of the term capitalism. Where from and how it has appeared? According to John Kenneth Galbraith, one of the most prominent American economists, after the global economic crisis of 1929-1933, the USA was worried about unprecedented economic successes in the USSR and the resulting propagation of socialist and communist ideas, so a there was a need to develop and implement new approaches to the ideological struggle. In this context the most reputable American economists and political scientists began to work and as Galbraith claims, invented the term “market economy”, which then gradually replaced the term capitalism2.
It is well known that in economic crises the monopolies, especially natural monopolies, use their high structural and hence, dominant positions in eco-
1 World-system in I. Wallerstein’s definition. In the historical periods of the past there were several world-systems existing simultaneously.
2 The term “market economy” was also used by F. Braudel to describe the market where craftsmen and farmers sell the results of their work, where there are no oligopolies and monopolies. Braudel views “market economy” as the lowest niche of the capitalist system [3].
25
S.Manukyan
<21st CENTURY», №2 (18), 2015
nomic the system, as well as their sufficient financial resources to “convince” the governments, especially weak ones that depend on international capital, to “protect” the backbone infrastructures, including the banking system, energy system, etc. That is why even in “receding” economies where numerous bankruptcies take place, the monopolistic, usually transnational corporations not only preserve their capitals, but multiply them. Under the legal concept of “commercial secret” they have the best possibilities to hide financial manipulations not only from the wide public, but also from those government or nongovernment structures that could in any way prevent those.
Under particular conditions of a given economic crisis some particular monopolies have unique justifications to openly increase the tariffs and prices for the good and services they offer. However, large transnational corporation usually suffer the least from economic crises. They are capable of achieving the “sacred” goal of a capitalist (private) enterprise, the profit making, under any economic conditions of the moment. If the transnational monopolies would be unable to achieve this goal, it would mean an end to capitalism.
Are the people, especially intellectuals and particularly the college students, who are by default are either actual or would-be intellectuals, aware of these truths known since long ago? To understand this, let us review several accessible survey data.
In a survey1 conducted among the university students of Yerevan in 2015, only 7.0% of students answered correctly the question “In your opinion, currently what is the social system in Armenia?” Some 7.2% gave an incorrect answer, 21.6% gave instead an answer about the political regime or the political
1 Մանուկյան Ս, ՀՀ ուսանողների կենսաոճի և Բոլոնիայի գործընթացի գնահատման հետազոտություն: !Տէ7Քաղաքական և սոցիոլոգիական խորհրդատվությունների ինստիտուտ, 2015թ.:
26
«21st CENTUR Y», № 2 (18), 2015
S.Manukyan
system. Interestingly, 57.3% of the respondents said they did not know, while 6.9% provided absurd answers. Students studying social sciences were relatively more aware about the social system, but even among them the correct answers comprised only 12.4%. This means:
• Out of 8 social science students (economists, lawyers, sociologists, political science students) 7 are not aware what is the current social system in Armenia.
This fact directly points that in the universities the level of knowledge in social sciences is very low regardless of their area of studies, whether social science, humanities, natural sciences or technical disciplines.
Although during the study years the social science knowledge of students increase, but even in the 2nd years Master’s degree studies only 9.2% of the students answered correctly what is the current social system in Armenia.
If 93% of the students in Yerevan do not either know or know “approximately” or know incorrectly the name of the social system where they live, then it can be assumed that the percentage of students who have specific knowledge about social science theories, including adequate social theories is very close to 0%. It would be also unjustified to suppose that the students possess systematic social science knowledge. Nonetheless, exceptions are possible. Obviously, if the students do not even know what social system they live in, then it is hard to assume they are aware of any cohesive concept about it.
• Hence, the ideological dead end for the “No to Robbery!” youth public movement was logical.
• Having no skills and knowledge necessary for constructive communication, the students faced either the path of confrontation, or “disgraceful” retreat, with the latter being “unacceptable” for the ambitious youth.
27
S.Manukyan
<21st CENTURY», No2 (18), 2015
What developments are possible in youth movements?
Since the students of Yerevan have no systematic social worldview, they are subject to manipulations. And manipulations are possible and efficient when they are based on mental anchors that exist in social consciousness.
What are the mental anchors in the consciousness of the Yerevan students that can be used by internal and external forces to “curb” these movements? Let us review the mental anchors in the social consciousness related to two fundamental problems, as they were explored by the same survey:
1. What is the main reason for inequality in the society?
2. What are the viewpoints of the students regarding the phenomenon, when elites stand above the law and social norm?
To uncover the anchors related to the first issue, the students were asked the following question: “ Which of the following statements is the closest to your opinion regarding the inequality and poverty?” The answer choices and percentages of respective responses turned as follows:
• “Every person is responsible for his/her well-being” - 58.8% of the students.
• “If the country prospers economically, these issues would be solved” -12.1% of the respondents.
• “The main reason for poverty and inequality is the injustice in the country” - 27.7%.
The remaining 1.4% either did not agree with any of the statements or found it hard to answer.
The standpoints of students on equality before the law were found out through the following question: “In your opinion, is it natural that the rich and the powers that be break the law and get away with it, because whoever gets
28
«21st CENTUR Y», № 2 (18), 2015
S.Manukyan
rich or acquires power would behave like that?”’ Two-thirds of the students, 66.6% answered “No” and one-third, or 33.0% answered “yes”, while 0.4% found it hard to answer.
What can be concluded based on these findings, is that individualistic, liberal viewpoints dominate in the consciousness of approximately 60% of the students, while about 25% adhere to systemic criticism standpoint. For two-thirds of the youth the social behaviors of the elite are unacceptable, when they stand above the law, while the one-third would probably behave in the same manner if there was a chance to do so1.
Even such a superficial analysis of data allows suggesting that.
• Other things held equal, the youth movement can be more easily manipulated using strategies that apply liberal-democratic content, rather than some other ideologies.
• However, every fourth student does have a feeling that the social system is flawed 2 .
On the other hand, the color revolutions during the past decade and especially the Ukrainian “maidan” that started in 2013 suggest that in such cases it is always necessary to view civil movements first of all from the perspective of the chances to turn into destructive social processes, and then also political ones.
The complexes of social consciousness among the student youth
Given that student youth has no elementary social science knowledge, that does not necessarily mean they have no social poo-complexes.
What are these complexes among the social stratum of students and youth, 1 2
1 Obviously, this does not necessarily mean such behavior would not be manifested also by some of those who responded that breaking the law by elites is unacceptable.
2 The circumstance described earlier show that it is just a feeling, not a knowledge.
29
S.Manukyan
<21st CENTURY», No2 (18), 2015
and what possible developments could those lead to? Within the framework of the above mentioned survey these complexes were studied, too.
The results of survey indicate that currently in consciousness of student youth there are two main mental complexes, which may significantly influence the development of student movement.
The first complex is: lack of trust toward the current political system, and as a part of it also pessimism about Armenia’s future. The specific content of this complex is that the student youth think the conditions in Armenia will not improve in the coming years, and do not believe that the rulers of Armenia sincerely want to improve the situation in the country. On the other hand, they think the political forces are no better and they pursue interests of their leaders, not ordinary people. Finally, the Armenian state also does not protect the interests of ordinary people.
The content of the second complex is that the student youth believe serious changes are necessary for Armenia, and new political figures are needed for that. At the same time they think the non-government organizationscontribute to improvement of life in Armenia.
Currently these two complexes in the public consciousness of the students are weakly interconnected.
There are also three other factors in the public consciousness of the students that although are not interconnected with the two described above, but if properly used, can prompt various development scenarios for student movements. These are: (a) two-thirds of the students believe Armenia needs to be ruled with a strong hand, while one-third think Armenia needs democracy; (b) two-thirds of the students think the economic elite of Armenia plays negative
30
«21st CENTUR Y», № 2 (18), 2015
S.Manukyan
role in development of the country, while one-third think the role is positive; (c) opinions are divided equally on what is preferable for Armenia: capitalism or socialism, while about 10% had no opinion on this issue1.
The results of the study are consistent with the structure of “No to Robbery!” movement’s evolvement. The movent rejected the “old” opposition parties and politicians. An exception was made for just one political figure that had demonstratively left all already “traditional” parties and established a new political party. However, this “new” political figure has not been given (yet) any serious role within the movement2.
On the other hand, it is remarkable that the opposition parties in their turn did not really make any vigorous efforts to take part in the movement. This may mean with their experience they assessed and understood, or perhaps they have been clued that they will not be able to become political leaders of this movement, while too active and ineffective involvementwith the students would have further shattered their already low reputation3.
However, the data of the study and the structure, nature and content of the Armenian civil society (in a narrow sense) suggest that:
• Currently, there is a large potential for emergence of new political figures and entities in Armenia.
• Political developments in Armenia will largely depend on who, how and in what ideological framework this potential will be implemented.
1 It may seem strange how the students can compare socialism and capitalism, if they do not know what is the social system in Armenia. As a reminder, no answer options were offered for the question regarding the social system. Whereas the comparison of socialism and capitalism was made by answering the following question: “Do you agree that the capitalist system is preferable over the socialist one?’ Thus, in this case the knowledge of students was not assessed, but rather their standpoints based on fragmentary knowledge were compared.
2 This obviously, does not mean it is impossible in future.
3 Nevertheless, one may not totally discard the possibility of “old” parties becoming close to the movement.
31
S.Manukyan
<21st CENTURY», No2 (18), 2015
• New political figures and unions will form or grow (whether spontaneously or through guidance) from members of NGOs or people surrounding them
Apparently, this implies complicated, multifaceted and diverging processes that will occur (most likely already ongoing) in Armenia in realizing this potential.
Obviously, the need for a national ideology acceptable for the youth has already shaped in Armenia. The one who will solve this problem faster and more effectively will take over the future of Armenia.
It has to be noted that there is an urgent need for not only presenting such ideology to the public, but also implementing specific and effective strategies to achieve acceptance of the new ideology in the society. Half-hearted and uncertain ideology-imitations and controversial actions not only would turn ineffective, but will hinder achievement of objectives of the circles, including the government, which would present those to the public and first of all to the youth, especially the students.
In such case the arena will become wide open for those who are indifferent to the future and security of Armenia and Armenian people, and are just trying solve their global and regional issues. The fertile ground for manipulations by such forces is ready.
It is time to make decisions and act upon them.
July, 2015
References and literature
1. <<Ոչ թալանին» նախաձեռնությունն առաջարկում է էլեկտրաէներգիայի սակագների անհիմն բարձրացման դեմ պայքարը խորհրդարանից տեղափոխել փողոց, http://www.arminfo.info/index.cfm?objectid=AF29D690-FACA-11E4-92330EB7C0D21663
2. Дж.К Гэлбрейт, Экономика невинного обмана: правда нашего времени, М., Издательство «Европа», 2009.
3. Ф.Бродель, Динамика капитализма, Смоленск, Полиграмма, 1993.
32
