Essays and Analyses

The Bigger Picture: Politics of the Unconscious “New” Canadians

2011-05-28T16:59:00.000-07:00

An old “new” reality

Ever since the May 2, 2011 Federal election, the Canadian media has been referring to how the Conservative Party has become the party of the “new” Canadians; how Immigration Minister Jason Kenney was the real strategist behind the majority handed to the Conservatives and how Ontario was essentially won by this “ethnic” vote, securing a “stable” four years for Stephen Harper to implement his political agenda.

I personally abhor the moniker of being a “new” Canadian, since I have been a citizen for close to a quarter century and have been diligently paying my taxes for longer than that. Many Canadians born here after 1989 are “new”er than me. And yet, as a long-time member of the Liberal Party of Canada and a Canadian by choice, I have witnessed this shift of the “new” Canadian / ethnic / immigrant vote from the Liberals to the Conservatives as described by the media. It was non-existent in the seventies (so I am told), a trickle in the eighties, a small stream in the nineties, turning into a torrent in the early years of the millennium and it has now become a flood that has all but drowned the Liberal Party.

Why has this happened? Is it really the genius of the Harper Conservatives to have cultivated this immigrant “conservatism”? Has it always been there and was recently rediscovered? Is it something the Liberals did or did not do?

It is arguably a combination of all of the above, but also, I think, there is something else that is radically different. That something is what the Liberal strategists have not only failed to realize, but have miscalculated due to their own narrow world-view imposed by the self-delusional concept of the “naturally governing party”.

Relationship to power: citizen vs. courtier or subject

This new element has to do with the fundamental understanding of the role of state power and its relationship to individuals. In Western liberal democracies, at least on the theoretical level, the citizen does play a fundamental role and, it could be argued, that the citizen also holds some practical power as well. The main sources of this power are not only the constitution of the country in question, but also its legislative structure, the active presence of an opposition, societal and historical evolution, the in-country political traditions, the structural checks and balances, but most of all, the independent judiciary that can curb the power that the state wields.

As a contrast, the state in most developing countries is a source of power that is almost unchallenged. The state is either corrupt or despotic or both. In which case, the fundamental relationship of the individual with the state structure is not one of a citizen, but either of one who is ruled as a subject (regardless if the regime is a monarchy or not) or, if one belongs to the privileged elites, then that individual is, as rightfully pointed out by the great essayist John Ralston Saul, a courtier.

The courtier is someone who moves in the corridors of power with a very specific self-interest of benefiting from the existing structure. That self-interest can be in the form of personal benefit, or in the form of benefit to a group he or she represents or is a member of. The difference, as argued by John Ralston Saul again, is that the courtier is only motivated by self-interest, whereas the citizen is motivated by disinterest, or better known as the public or common good.

In most developing countries, the political involvement of individuals will therefore be mostly be motivated by that self-interest. It is what fuels the military coups and often the running of political candidates who get “elected”. Corrupt governments are the fertile ground for the enrichment of the politicians and the circles they belong to.

This view of government is what poisons the public attitude. This same view also assumes that state structures and government policies and programs are unchanging. Why? Because they are not there to serve the citizens, but rather the narrowly defined elites or special interest groups. Hence, the issue is not about changing government to alter its fundamental orientation towards becoming a truly representative arm of all citizens, but rather a competition about which special group is supposed to benefit. In a sense, the most apt metaphor is one of criminal gangs vying for control of a territory. The inhabitants of that territory will never be rid of all gangs, but will only change the criminal boss. The “contract” stays intact and unchanging. Everyone continues to pay protection money, just maybe, every once in a while, to someone else.

The courtier behaves like the gang member. The courtier seeks power and control for self-benefit and is an active opportunist. What about the subject? The subject seeks to survive and also benefit the most from the existing structure, essentially to feed off the scraps of the courtiers and elites, because the subject has no stake in government and state structures. Subjects are therefore passive opportunists; they believe that they cannot change anything; therefore, the most logical outcome is to pander to the elites and to try to look as well after one’s own interest.

In the metaphor of systems theory, courtiers and subjects seek only to sub-optimize, while the whole structure could come crashing down. They are the blindfolded managers busy creating the best narrow section in a factory assembly line, not caring what they are producing, nor whether the product is well-designed at all, or even if anyone wants the product at the output. They could monopolize the whole of the company resources just to be super-efficient in their narrow subsection. They always assume that their work is the most important and relevant and that resources will always be there to let them complete their quest. This is the permeating approach of self-interest.

Democracy is the antithesis of the above. Democracy is agreement about the common good. It is about an informed disinterest practiced by citizens who are actually interested in the societal “optimization” as a whole, not for its individual sectors or groups within. Why? Because citizens believe that a society is much more than the sum of its parts, and that the common good has value for all, as well as for future generations. Citizens never assume that state structures and policies are eternal because they know that they need to continuously defend them by their active and informed involvement. Citizens are not involved for the short term, not even for a period comparable to their lifetime, but rather continuously.

The long-term erosion of democracy in favour of corporatism has taken away our self-view as citizens. For those who have lived most of their lives as subjects or courtiers in developing countries and have little or no in-depth understanding of these issues, their political worldview is profoundly tainted against imagining themselves as citizens. This makes these so-called “ethnic” constituencies ripe for corporatism because they already have such a behavioral and historical frame of reference to relate to.

This is the real discovery of Harper and Kenney. Ideologically, Canada has never had a party in power that is so blatantly corporatist. The real Progressive Conservatives believed in the public good and in the disinterested citizen. What we have in place today is nothing of the sort. It is the Western-based Reform Party that now has a majority which believes in the dismantling of government and has raised the banner of across-the-board privatization. The only thing in common with the Conservative Party that has historically governed this country is just a name. The issue is that “new” Canadians have no historical memory of the original to fall back on. They see the state either as subjects or as courtiers; an institution to benefit them as individuals or as a tribe. And that is just fine with the Harper Conservatives, because corporatism is their raison d’être.

This is also what the Liberal Party of Canada not only failed to realize, but in fact, at a very high-level and fundamentally as well, encouraged the erosion of the concept of citizenry by its own approach to politics. The courtier behavior is found all over the Canadian recent political landscape, examples include the defection of Liberal MP Wajid Khan to the Conservatives in exchange for privilege, the counter defection of Belinda Stronach to the Liberals in exchange for a cabinet post (and a potential run at the leadership), the appointment of the tribal separatist demagogue Jean Lapierre to key Liberal positions in Parliament and government, the blatantly overt influence peddling of Rahim Jaffer, the husband of Conservative MP Helena Guergis and on and on. This is also what we see in Quebec provincial politics, where the governing “federalist” Liberal Party appoints individuals with acknowledged separatist political viewpoints as senior bureaucrats and even to provincial cabinet posts.

This blatant disregard of the policy platforms of the party, of the desire of the membership and of the political activism at the grassroots level, undermines the democratic institutions of the political parties relegating them to become machineries to seize power. Therefore they attract courtiers. Ideas become secondary to ideology, policy activism gets turned into propaganda, debates become popularity contests between media personalities and cynicism grows within the ranks of the party supporters but, most importantly, within the population who see no alternative but to, at best, vote in protest. At worst, they get resigned to the narrow mercantilist viewpoint imposed on them by the special-interest groups robbing them of their role as citizens.

What do immigrants seek in their adopted homeland?

To understand what “new” Canadians seek, it would be helpful to refer back to the three roles of subject, courtier and citizen, in that order. And perhaps in no case is it better illustrated than in the issue of the evacuation of Canadian citizens of Lebanese origin fleeing the Lebanese-Israeli war of 2006. This was arguably the largest peace time evacuation effort ever undertaken by the Canadian government, moving over close to 15,000 citizens who had been residing in Lebanon during the war. It should be noted that at the time, according to the admission of Foreign Affairs, close to 40,000 citizens had registered with the Canadian embassy. The evacuation effort, therefore involved slightly over one third of all who had registered. Even, it is estimated that a large percentage of Canadian citizens never registers with the Canadian embassies abroad. So the real number of Canadian passport holders in Lebanon at the time was likely close to double the number of registrants. Considering that according to Statistics Canada figures, the Canadian Lebanese community numbers about 144,000 (2001 figures), this would suggest that, even conservatively, an astonishing ratio of anywhere between 1/3 to 1/2 or even more of Canadians of Lebanese origin actually do not live in Canada.

The cost of this massive evacuation undertaking was estimated at slightly more than $95M to the Canadian taxpayer. This brings it very close to the suggested amount involved in the infamous sponsorship scandal of about $100M (as per the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser), which has cost the Liberal Party so dearly and has arguably destroyed its potential for ever governing Canada again in the near to mid-term future. Massive waste in the tens of billions spent on dubious hi-tech military toys aside, both amounts are relatively puny compared to enormous federal budgets, and yet, nothing incenses the taxpayer more than stories of illicit spending of their money. Subsequent anecdotal evidence suggested that most of those who were repatriated to Canada were not temporarily in Lebanon, but were in fact there permanently and have since returned there. In fact, the French Radio Canada had a whole episode of its investigative program Enquête dedicated to the fraudulent misrepresentations of such dubious “citizens”, many of Lebanese origin, who have acquired citizenship through bypassing of the Canadian laws, misrepresenting their residency, even collecting social benefits while never having lived here at all, through the use of a whole network of shady “consultants” who create false information and data trails to deceive the authorities.

Now my point is not to demonize Lebanese-Canadians, I am one myself after all. The fact is that I know many Lebanese who are in reality actively engaged as citizens in the utmost democratic sense of the word. Many are my friends and colleagues within and outside the Liberal Party of Canada. My point is that this specific incident has unearthed the large scale attitude of the “new” Canadians towards the country. This is not an attitude of a citizen engaged in disinterest to build a better future for society. It is the attitude of the subject, trying to benefit the maximum from the status quo, even doing it fraudulently if need be. The state is solely a source of benefit and there is no personal sacrifice, not even the basic act of paying taxes locally.

As a further illustration of why this is so and how old habits die hard, it should be noted that Lebanon itself is the ultimate example of a tribal society of self-interest. Its touted “democracy” by the West is a sham, as loyalties lie only to one’s religious denomination first, local chieftain second, and to whatever other kleptocracy is in power as third. In fact, such political divisions are part of the unwritten constitutional agreements with each of the three key government positions of the President, the Prime Minister and the Speaker of Parliament allocated to the three largest religious denominations exclusively, and all government and military senior positions divided up according to a dubious census from 1943 and allocated to one of nearly twenty different communities. Merit has no place. It is the ultimate legitimized discriminatory hiring practice. One has only to question as to what would happen if the Government of Quebec or Canada decided not to hire immigrants, or officially declared that positions are reserved based on one’s religious or linguistic origin. Such a government would be torn to bits first by the media, then by the opposition and it would undoubtedly fall soon afterwards. Such a society is by definition, a fertile breeding ground for subjects and courtiers.

Subjects and courtiers have no use for the concept of citizenry. Most “new” Canadians of today are interested to be either a subject or a courtier. This was not the case throughout the 1940s, 50s, 60s or even the 70s. In post WWII, immigrants who came from Europe had seen and lived devastation. They were interested in building not only a future for themselves and their children, but also a new and just society based on self-sacrifice. Why? Because, most could not have survived the war had it not been for the sacrificial disinterest of the liberator soldiers, or the societal support mechanisms that were necessary to live through the dark times. They had seen how corporatism had led directly to fascism. Many were also issued from the worker movements and understood that there was a potential to build a society founded on fairness. They also saw that opportunities of the post-war prosperity could only be secured for the longer term if the government, their government, reflected their values, for most of that period, those values were reflected in the Liberal Party of Canada. For those few who came in from developing countries during the 50s to 70s they had experienced the great struggles of liberation from colonialism, they has witnessed and fled violence, they been part of the great social and anti-militaristic upheavals of the period that resonated around the globe. In short, they too experienced the value of social activism and the concern about the public good.

What do the numbers say and what do they lead us to conclude?

If we fast forward to today, we see that the strong social safety net built by all Canadians over the course of the twentieth century is now being used by sectors of the population that have never contributed to building it, nor even behave that they value it sufficiently that they want to be engaged in maintaining and improving it for future generations. Apart from the intrinsic value of holding a Canadian passport, our Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement programs, the universal and no-direct-cost healthcare system, relatively inexpensive higher education and all the panoply of taxpayer-funded services are all a dream come true for anyone in the developing world saddled with the burden of caring for a medium-sized family and a double set of aging parents or grandparents.

According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, from 2000 to 2009, over 1.3 million immigrants were admitted to Canada. A yearly average of slightly more than 10% of that number consisted of refugees, almost half came in as economic immigrants, and about 40% came in the class of family reunifications i.e. spouses, children and parents of the economic immigrant category, about a quarter of this last category are parents of the original immigrant (i.e. 10% of total immigration numbers). The information gets more interesting if we count that from 1980 to 1995 over 2.7 million immigrants were admitted with similar distributions. This would mean that the overwhelming majority of “new” Canadians come here for purely economic reasons; a large sector of that population arrives as a direct family or extended family of the original immigrant. Assuming no illegal immigration (a tall order indeed), over the past 30 years anywhere between 5 to 6 million immigrants have been admitted to Canada, which would mean that about 500,000 to 600,000 parents would have been part of that group. Assuming, again conservatively that the average economic immigrant’s age is about 35 years old, then it would place their parents’ age to about 55, the immigration process itself adds at least another 5 years to process the files of parents, so they would arrive in Canada when they are at least 60 years old if not older and would start collecting OAS and GIS within a handful of years if not months, while benefiting from the health care system immediately upon arrival. This would also suggest that because of the demographics and life expectancy, those same parents of economic immigrants would draw on the social safety net for about two decades. The cost of the OAS and GIS amounts would be an astonishing $6B per year alone, not counting any health care costs; all going to support individuals who have had zero or negligible economic contribution to the country.

Again, I am not arguing for curbing immigration or even disallowing such benefits. I happen to believe that immigration policies and rules, as well as those governing the social safety net are what have made Canada one of the leading countries in the UN Human Development Index. It is a place where people aspire to come and build a better future, precisely because of them. That is the positive side. On the negative side, these same policies, in of themselves, have perhaps encouraged the thinking among immigrant groups that this is the land of plenty where all one needs is to just get in, and on that fact alone, Canada is relatively easier than most Western countries to immigrate to.

What this would suggest is that our generous approach to managing our social needs encourages precisely the behavior that the incident of the Lebanese has unmasked. I am arguing that such subject-like behavior is the natural outcome of many factors, including our own official policies, the socio-economic conditions of countries that have been the source of immigrant populations, and a lack of understanding of these high-level relationships by the policy makers. Fundamentally, it is also the failure of the Liberal Party of Canada not only to grasp these shifting realities, but in fact actively encouraging courtier behavior by its own internal attitudes of strangling healthy debate, focus on power instead of ideas, neglect of the grassroots, nepotism and so on, all of which being arguably the only lines of defense against the larger factors that I outlined above. In fact, by its own focus on courtier/power relations, the Liberal Party of Canada has actively accelerated its own demise; it has set an example that courtier/subject behavior is the one that is ultimately more important for it and therefore to be rewarded. From a party of great achievements of building Canada, it has actively engaged in erasing its own memory. Why? Because actions always speak louder than words. It is not important to say what you stand for, it is also important to act accordingly. Leadership is only by example. After all, no one would want to go to a dentist who has rotten teeth and gingivitis.

Ignorance and the unconscious “new” voting realities

Subject and courtier behavior cannot be completely eradicated in democracies. The issue is really a question of degree. It appears though that the courtiers have won out because they vastly outnumber everyone else. That is certainly the case in all of our governing structures, and it is certainly the case among immigrants. Immigrant populations would likely need to undergo a generational change to be able to convert into an active citizenry. The real issue is that we see today a massive shift against the citizenry in Canadian society at large and therefore an undermining of democracy, so the “new” Canadians will likely not experience any democratic structural practice, they will only witness its dismantling. This is true especially with the Harper majority in place today. What was their first act when they achieved this status? They eliminated the per vote subsidy to the political parties and put that amendment in the budget, so that it will not even be debated as a separate bill. This is corporatism in practice par excellence. Politics and power can now only be funded by those who can afford to do so, the disenfranchised voices do not matter, in fact the majority voices, who voted against Harper, do not matter. It is these same corporatists who would eliminate services such as legal aid, taxpayer-funded linguistic minority challenge rights, and slowly dismantle every single brick of what makes Canada what it is, its just and equitable social fabric built through the past century.

John Ralston Saul argues that such Western societies constitute the Unconscious Civilization because they have no memory. This is a very important point also for “new” Canadians. By definition, they have no historical memory of what Canada is. By experience, they assume that whatever we have as social policies will not change. Why? Because they never did in their home countries, the current Arab spring notwithstanding (it being arguable whether there will be substantial social policy change after the “success” of these revolutions).

“New” Canadian subjects and courtiers fail to realize that the democratic contributions made by citizens, through the two governing forces are what have made Canada what it is, the progressive policies of the historical Conservative Party but mainly of the Liberal Party of Canada.

This is by no means an argument for historical entitlement to the confidence of voters. However, there is no realization that the elements of the current Canadian social fabric, eroded as it is, have all been implemented by Liberal governments of this country which acted in the democratic interest or the self-disinterest of the fully engaged citizenry of the times. These include such tenets of democracy as the Supreme Court of Canada, the first woman MP, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Canada’s important contribution to the founding of the United Nations, the creation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the creation of the UN Peacekeeping Mission, the international Ottawa Accord banning land mines, the Canada Council for the Arts, the whole of the social safety net, from family allowances to OAS and GIS payments, to government funding of post-secondary education, to universal health care, full equal rights for women in all domains, official bilingualism, the Canadian flag, the world’s first race-free immigration system, the world’s first national domestic communications satellite, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the National Gallery of Canada, the Canadian Museum of Civilizations, even the elimination of a $42B annual deficit and gun registry legislation. All of the above have been achieved by Liberal governments, not only at costs to the taxpayer, but also because of important social struggles participated in and often led by the citizenry concerned with the public good.

The “new” Canadians have no memory of most, if any, of the above. They see the above constructs as state services that have been there since the beginning and that will continue to be there. They do not realize that only citizens practicing democracy can build such institutions, but that they also must defend them for posterity. The longer term survival of these achievements can only be guaranteed by an active engagement of the disinterested citizen, not by the corporatist pursuits of the courtier, or by the abuse of self-benefit of the subject.

It is the inexistence of this memory that makes the “new” Canadians into intellectually corporatist conservatives, essentially ripe for the picking by Harper and Kenney. And that is exactly what happened.

As for the Liberal Party of Canada, over the past decade, it had disintegrated into the same corporatist practices, turning its back on its tradition of disinterest and engaging the citizenry. It has thus alienated and destroyed the only bastion of defense against this societal unconsciousness. It is at that moment that the battle was lost.

A way forward

I would suggest that the Liberal Party of Canada, by being handed this historical defeat, now has a unique opportunity. It is so far removed from power that its wrong focus should disappear. It also has an opportunity to rid itself of the rampant courtier attitude and hence the courtiers themselves.

This can only be done if the new leadership takes the time to listen to the grassroots. Mr. Rae has to go back to the citizens in each of the 308 ridings. He has to go back to finding the disinterested citizens willing to reengage in democracy, as members, supporters, volunteers, donors and eventually candidates. That should be the only measurement yardstick of the political position.

But this time, it has to be real, not the false ideological positions of the elites in power. Courtiers out of power, or out of the hope of power, have nothing to attract them. They will abandon ship, likely even move to Harper. And that should be just fine.

Mr. Rae and his successor must seek selflessness, imagination and courage. Citizens by definition have the first and, given the opportunity, will demonstrate that they also have a lot of the other two.

Politics and the Tribe

2011-04-30T07:28:00.000-07:00

I chose the title of this essay after realizing that one of the most important electoral battles of the May 2, 2011 Federal election is being fought right where I live, in the town of Mount Royal. The battle being the one for the Jewish votes and who would they elect, the Liberal incumbent or the Conservative challenger, or perhaps even the NDP challenger? All three are of Jewish origin. In fact, the NDP candidate, Mr. Itcush, even had flyers distributed to the homes citing as his achievement his board membership in both the Quebec and Canadian Jewish Congresses. Mr. Cotler, the Liberal incumbent, has a whole list of achievements to his credit which are not focused on his birth origin but rather on his track record as an MP, a former Justice Minister and an international track record and reputation as a principled defender of human rights. The Conservative candidate proudly smiles at those who look at his political signs sporting a kippah on his head, leaving no doubt as to what his “provenance” is, and presumably what he is supposed to stand for.

The issue has also been covered extensively by both the local and the national media. In fact, the venerable radio program, The Current, of the even more venerable CBC, devoted a whole half-hour broadcast to the topic on April 21st.

You may wish to listen to it or read about it here.

What was even more extraordinary about that same broadcast was that it had three Jewish panelists who, in a very articulate fashion, explained their respetive and relevant perspectives with an emerging single message. Mainly, that a Jewish voter should go beyond the issue of the staunch support of Stephen Harper for Israel and basically not sink to that level of tribalism.

In fact, one of the panelists, Mr. Elliott Leven, a lawyer from Winnipeg, remarkably summed up the issue as follows: Is Stephen Harper a mensch? That being a Yiddish word for a “decent, compassionate human being” as he put it. And because he thought that Harper was definitely not a mensch, therefore he suggested that Jews or anybody else who think that we need descent people in politics should refrain from voting for Harper or his party.

What Mr. Leven was saying is that ideas matter, as well as individuals, their actions and their track records. He was challenging Jewish voters not to be a tribe, but to be thinking individuals. He was, unbeknownst to himself, teaching Armenians a lesson

Now, the reader might of course wonder why I have used such adjectives as “remarkable” and “extraordinary”, well, I don’t think I am exaggerating.

Let me explain.

What would happen, if in a riding with many Arab voters, the three main federal parties ran candidates of Arabic origin with some even citing their contributions to the Canadian Muslim Federation as broad evidence of their civic involvement? Furthermore, if the sole issue of who to vote for was framed as to which party best acted in the interests of the PLO, or even, if one of the candidates was photographed sporting a keffiyeh head scarf? What would be the reaction of the mainstream media or of the population at large?

I am sure that you can come up with many answers, which would include even a questioning of putting the interests of a foreign state in a priority vs. those of Canada, but I am also sure that none of your analyses would contain any flattery addressed to those who pander to such base instincts and who essentially focus on a policy of division, of pitting one ethnic origin against another.

So why would it be acceptable if such politics is applied to the so-called Jewish vote? Mr. Leven seems to think that it is actually insulting to the intelligence of the Jewish voters, and I think so too.

That was the first thought exercise.

For the second one, you need to be a little more imaginative. Read the scenario and answer each question at the end. Only Yes or No answers allowed. No nuances.

Scenario 1: Let’s say Armenia is an autocratic kleptocracy. The regime ruthlessly oppresses religious and other minorities. Corruption is rampant. One of the Federal political parties running for office in Canada declares that it will support the government of Armenia in every single move the latter makes and will defend that regime in all international forums. This Federal party may or may not have domestic Canadian policies you agree with. Do you vote for this party?

Scenario 2: Let’s say a Federal Canadian party declared that it will advance the cause of the recognition of the Genocide of Armenians everywhere across Canada and even in international forums. This party has other policies which you vehemently disagree with and that you think are detrimental for Canada as a whole. Do you vote for this party?

Scenario 3: Let’s say Armenia is still an autocratic kleptocracy. The regime ruthlessly oppresses religious minorities and its opponents. Corruption is rampant. A Canadian Federal party declares that, if elected, it will support all democratic and institutional reforms in Armenia. That same party however, when in government, has not supported the recognition of the Genocide of Armenians, although most of its MPs individually have. This Federal party may or may not have domestic policies you agree with. Do you vote for this party?

Scenario 4: In this scenario, the specific issue of Armenia is irrelevant. However, the Federal party I would like you to consider has had a consistent foreign policy based on a humanitarian approach, multilateralism, institution building as well as civic society building. Furthermore, if elected, this party promises to actively support the inclusion of the Genocide of Armenians in the official high-school curriculums of all provinces. This Federal party may or may not have other domestic Canadian policies you agree with. Do you vote for this party?

Now this is a very legitimate thought exercise. Why? Because it unmasks our own hidden tribalism. As you move down the scenarios, you might be tempted to answer with a “Yes”, or even feel that the answer is a resounding “Yes”. And yet, in my view, even Scenario 4 should not be so clear cut.

Remember the original premise? Yes or No, no nuances allowed. That is the crux of the matter.

Because ultimately, a Yes or a No is exclusively about a tribe.

Yes vs. No. Us vs. Them. “Are you with us?” vs. “Are you against us?”. Separate from Canada vs. Stay in Canada. Eastern Canada vs. Western Canada. The French vs. The English. Ottawa vs. The Provinces. Quebec vs. The Rest of Canada. Rural Canada vs. The city folks. The Jew vs. The Arab. The Christian vs. The Muslim. Black vs. White. A majority vs. a minority.

Politics turned into a game of continuous referenda.

Granted, such “politics” can succeed and can bring those who pursue such divisions to power (even with democratic elections. After all, if you remember your history, it is how the Nazis came to power). Yet, it would be a system which has become only an illusion of democracy and is never the real thing.

Politics in my world is about ideas. Therefore, it is about nuances. It is about shades of grey. It is about coalitions and alliances. It is about finding common ground. It is about a vision of society of the future that we want to build. It might be about taxes, but only as a means, not as an objective. And democracy is absolutely never about referenda, precisely because it cannot divide. It needs to listen to the other, to engage the other, to create a common purpose with the other. And that common purpose cannot be reached with exclusion.

Being in a tribe might make us feel comfortable. I would suggest though, that in the end, it is a false comfort of base instincts. It is a denial of our humanity. Why? Because what make us fundamentally human are three things, concern about other humans, our ability to think independently, and our consciousness of ourselves. Any form of denial of any of these three interlinked characteristics is equivalent to denying our humanity.

The tribe denies all three. It wants you to be concerned exclusively about the tribe, it does not want you to think critically, and the individual never matters.

The real politics of ideas, the real exercise of democracy is about affirming our humanity.

You can affirm your tribe. Or, you can affirm your humanity.

It is your choice.

Hold That Thought: Ski Jumping, Credit Unions and What They Could Teach the Diaspora(s)

2010-04-07T19:22:00.000-07:00

"Now what kind of a headline is that?" you might say.

Hold that thought, for now.

***

Human physical athletic achievements are truly remarkable. Especially, when the athlete competes only against himself (or herself).

If you are like me, you were likely enthralled watching the Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Vancouver this past February. One of the most spectacular sports that have always fascinated me is the ski jump. The athlete essentially skis down a steep slope, and then just hurls himself into a precipice, while gliding as he takes off from the ledge, with the hope of landing safely at the bottom and having literally jumped the longest possible distance. This is truly a tremendous demonstration of bravery, elegance, understanding of the forces of nature, understanding of the laws of physics, faith in one's own abilities and, I would venture to say, it is an almost unparalleled expression of the overcoming of one of the most basic of all natural instinctive fears, the fear of the force of gravity and falling down into the depths to one's own doom.

At the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, the longest ski jump that achieved gold medal status was 138 meters, a scary thought for anyone. Especially if one has seen the vertical video shot from the top of the jump hill all the way down to the landing area.

But, it turns out that that jump does not even come close to the world record of 239 meters of Mr. Bjørn Einar Romøren of Norway. Granted, this was not a standard ski jump, but was part of what is known as ski-flying competitions and was set back in 2005. There are apparently only a handful of ski-flying hills in the world that can allow for such a long takeoff, but this is something truly amazing to see. The jumping-off height is the equivalent of jumping off the Empire State Building (without a parachute!!!). Here is that jump for the record

World's Longest Ski Jump

The question that pops to one's mind though is how does one get there? How does one train to achieve such spectacular results? Do the athletes simply jump off cliffs and break their bones to smithereens, with those who survive and being foolish enough to try again eventually succeeding? Are these simply a suicidal lot who just happen to be selected by a process of self-elimination to amaze us?

Well, we know the answer. Ski jumping is like any other sport. It takes a long time to practice to achieve perfection, and like everything else, one has to start with very small steps. Children start training at a very early age, even as young as 3-4 years' old and they start practicing jumping off literally little bumps no higher than a few centimeters. Eventually, if they practice long enough and try hard enough and overcome all their fears and challenges they can achieve the 100 meter jumps and beyond.

Of course, you don't have to take my word for it. Here it is explained by a former US Olympic ski jumper Kurt Stein (11th in Lillehammer in 1994).

Now hold that thought again.

***
What would your reaction be if a complete stranger called you and said?

"We would like to create a financial institution based on the proven concept of credit unions that would take care of all your financial needs, your children's and grandchildren's education, your financial goals, your home ownership plans, your business financing needs, your retirement planning, your insurance planning, your tax planning, your estate planning and everything else that has to do with your family's finances, and by the way, you will have a say in how this organization is run."

Your first reaction might be like that of most people, to ask them not to bother you again and then simply hang up. Or, depending on your mood of the moment, you might skip the first part and just hang up.

A few slightly interested folks (or those who are likely more polite) might first ask the most obvious question:

"Who are you?” by that they would mean "Please identify yourself and let me judge if you are worthy of a little bit more of my time".

Then they would apologize and hang up.

Even a fewer number of people might engage in the conversation saying something like:

"And what are your (your group's, your team's, your company's) qualifications and certifications to allow you to engage in such broad-based financial activities?"

Even fewer might ask

"And who are your investors? Where does your money come from and how do you guarantee my deposits with your institutions".

And even fewer might further ask

"And what kind of track record do you have of prudently managing other people's money and investments and meeting their financial needs? Can you provide independent references that I can verify? What kind of checks and balances are in place to protect your clients etc. etc.?"

Now even fewer if any of these last very few, who would admittedly be interested, would say

"OK, things seem to check out, here is ALL of our family's financial wealth, we shall be using your services EXCLUSIVELY and where do we sign on the dotted line?” They would be the biggest of fools if they did so, simply because, from a financial perspective that would be the equivalent of being anti-diversified and putting all of one's eggs in the proverbial single basket. How many people you know would actually do that?

Of course, if the caller answered the question "Who are you?" with "My name is Bernie Madoff / Earl Jones / Charles Ponzi and have I got a deal for you" and you still continued the conversation, then you wouldn't deserve anyone’s sympathy.

Now, once again, hold that thought. This will be the last time, I promise.

***

If I were to ask a simple question of anyone with a semblance of knowledge of the Armenian Diaspora(s) and that simple question being this:

"Can you point out a successful historical experiment in democracy in any of the multitude of Armenian Diaspora(s)?"

What would be the answer?

It is of course a rhetorical question, but nevertheless, if anyone is tempted to answer YES, I would suggest that any answer should consider the following facts:

- The concept of democracy is to be understood as illustrated by the practical context of the societies of Western liberal democracies.

- It includes basic ideas such as representation and a legitimacy granted through some formal electoral process.

- It is bounded by the concept of an entity which encompasses a multitude of individuals, who do share a common aspect (religion, nationality, organizational affiliation etc.).

- It includes the actions of the representative body as being relevant for those individuals. For example, by acting for the social benefit and the improvement of the lives of the people that they are elected to represent.

- It encompasses some temporal boundaries, which limit the representing group in time and enforce repeated electoral processes after the expiry of that temporal limit.

- It encompasses varying degrees of checks and balances within the representational process itself and during the lifetime of the representational body.

- It also presupposes some kind of executive sub-body that emerges from the majority of the representative body, which in turn implements the agenda items and priorities that are deemed relevant for the larger electing group.

- It includes the implementation of an appropriate opposition to the majority representational group that works for similar objectives but with differing approaches and priorities.

- Said opposition being tasked with ensuring that the checks and balances in place are not circumvented and that accountability is maintained towards the individuals who have elected their representatives.

So, in summary, we are looking for representation through fair elections, an opposition serving the same principles, accountability to those who elect, legitimacy, and controls. All these being foundations of functioning democratic institutions as they are to be understood.

Given these criteria, one should perhaps look at the actual Armenian experience in the Diasporan context(s). Institutions of Armenian communities anywhere around the world are in fact, to this day, full of fake "democratic" practices. Even when one argues that there are relatively "fair" elections, the usurpation of any such "elected" position is a regular practice; changing the bylaws and regulations of the organization is a norm to allow the said usurpation; decisions without any consultation, let alone heeding any dissenting and opposing voices is an oft repeated storyline that can be told by many in any community; conflict of interest and nepotism are not even discussed anymore as they are daily practices across the board and so on. When was the last time that anyone attended an annual general meeting in an Armenian organization where those who reported to the members officially and unequivocally declared that there was no case of any conflict of interest in the year reported on and that that statement was recorded in the minutes and is part of the official proceedings? The issue is not even a relevant agenda item, and would barely be understood if brought up.

My first point therefore is related to the issue of trust. Given this reality and given that we have a serious institutional democratic deficit, and we actually do not know how to collectively behave democratically, why would we conclude that any new effort we come up with will succeed? Why would anyone in their sound mind give away their representational right to anyone who comes forward? Especially if those who are coming forward have any Diasporan institutional track record? Why would any of the readers of this essay for instance say to Mr. or Mrs. Spyourkahay Nergayatsoutsitch "I believe in you, here, take my vote and you have carte blanche. Represent me on any or all issues that our proposed Global Diasporan Representative Body decides on. Whether it be issues of policy, in country political positions, representations at the table of international organizations, negotiating rights and positions as it relates to our historical lands and crimes committed against our nation, or even cooperating with or perhaps actively undermining the government of Armenia". Even assuming through some miracle of a sudden Hokin Sourp (“Holy Spirit") descending upon all our existing "leadership" with their existing baggage and institutional inertia of undemocratic behavior being washed away, why would anyone believe that once this body is actually created that they could keep this suddenly discovered goodwill and sacrifice their priorities for the common good on all issues and for a long and sustained period of time?

To be fair, there is an existing track record of a cooperative structure, in the form of the All Armenia Fund. Yet, it certainly does not satisfy the conditions of a democratically elected body as outlined above. It is one of a narrow focus, which I would argue is the rightly focused approach to creating a Diasporan global governance model.

My second point is one related to universal legitimacy. Once again, given the current context, and even assuming that the issue of trust in all those who would come forward is resolved, the question is, why would anyone want to give away a universal representation on all issues to such a group? What happens if members of the Diasporas disagree with the positions taken by this organization? That would be a very likely possibility, yet this institution would have far-reaching representational legitimacy, it would have negotiating powers, policy agendas, and positions on serious topics of the day (many being extremely divisive). Furthermore this organization would run the risk of being compromised by international security agencies etc. Giving it broad legitimacy on all issues to represent the aspirations and positions of the Diasporas would be a serious mistake, knowing also full well that the concern of usurpation of power and leadership is a valid concern in all Diasporan institutions.

My third point is one of practicality and experience. Again, assuming that the previous two issues are resolved, where is the historical experience that would enable us to run such an organization across the whole world? How is the process of elections to be managed for example? What are the sources of financing and how transparent are they? How is the voice of the “silent majority” (non-affiliated with any organization) to be heard? How are the international jurisdictional issues tackled? Are there other international governance models that can be emulated and learnt from? And so on.

I would suggest that spending efforts and resources creating such a body, even when sincerely proposed, are at best misguided.

Why?

Because it would be the equivalent of skiing down the jumping hill and then dropping straight down into the void, not taking off into the skies.

Because it would be the equivalent of giving all our money to a bunch of people who have no experience building a credit union and yet they want to handle all of the financial affairs of their clientele.

Because, in a worst case scenario, it would be the equivalent of giving all your retirement money to Mr. Ponzi.

In an overstretched metaphor, it would be the equivalent of expecting cavemen to design a supersonic aircraft. Not impossible, but highly improbable.

Since it is no longer advised to hold our thoughts, especially in our politically charged times, I would also suggest that a global governance needs to be experimented with by focusing on specific projects around which all the Diasporas and multitudes of our identities would agree. The All Armenia Fund is one such project; the Armenia Tree Project is another one. The pursuit of justice and retribution for the crimes committed against our people could be another one. And so on. Granting legitimacy through representation on specific issues is viable and acceptable. At some point, if one disagrees with the direction it is taking, one can always withhold support. Even if the institution itself continues to officially represent us on its issue, at least it could not claim representation on all issues and forever. If the Diaspora(s) were not particularly thrilled when President Sarkissian signed the “Protocols”, why would they want to create the opportunity for more of such acts?

Any other approach would not be worth the effort.

I think.

And so should you.

© Viken L. Attarian
April 7, 2010

The Armenian Diaspora or the Cuckolds of Armenia by Denis Donikian

2009-10-11T08:08:00.000-07:00

The Diaspora is awakening. The imminent signature of the agreement protocols between the Turkish and Armenian States on the opening of the border, which they could freeze as inviolable, seems to have touched the Diaspora in the raw, in its pride and has reached into the depths of its struggle. The Diaspora that has seen itself as part of a single people, today finds itself as the forgotten part of its history and its destiny. And now, it has reached the rock bottom of its own schizophrenia.

In fact, the differences between the Armenian Diaspora and the government of Armenia are as great as the reality that the former feels the border problem as a symbolic matter, whereas the latter lives it as a deep issue of actual survival. The Diaspora can hold on to the issue for as long a time, as time it would be given; whereas the other has no more time. The main concern of Armenia is to find exits to offer an economic breathing room to a people that have been geographically exposed to a stranglehold. Knowing, that of the four windows that were granted to us by history, the window on Azerbaijan will stay closed for a long while, and that the Iranian and Georgian windows can arbitrarily close from one day to the next; the first, not only because Iran is rapidly becoming a nuclear power, but because of the suspicion that it is attributed by Western powers and certain Middle Eastern countries; the second, because it is subject to the Russian Damoclian sword. Is then President Sarkissian wrong to seek a large overture towards Armenia’s West at all costs.

But every time the Turkish counterpart signs anything, everything justly becomes suspect. The Armenians know, out of experience, that the Turkish state works on all fronts and pulls on every string to achieve its goals. The Diaspora experiences this anxiety on its own flesh. On their part, the Armenians of Armenia proper are not foreign to this either. They know too well the level of concealment achieved by Turkish diplomatic cynicism. It suffices to see the way Erdogan “parades” one after the other, Americans, Armenians and even Azeris, exuding warmth and coldness, truth and falsehood, with the sole aim to jumble their thoughts and to advance his own pawns. As it was confirmed in earlier times by Fr. Charmetant (1844-1921) when he wrote: “… The Turk, in fact, never cedes except to force. He fears no one on the diplomatic front; he possesses the highest degree of the art of evasive answers and delaying formulae; during discussions, he is the master of the art of pretending and no one knows better to sterilize the negotiations and to gain the time needed to postpone the solution, and to eventually cause the failure of any combination that might annoy him”.

One can « knock » Serge Sarkissian to one’s heart’s content, but I fear that we would be ill-advised to attribute to him any political angelic naïveté as do the numerous protesters and petitioners of all kinds. We should remember that Sarkissian fought at the highest levels for the defense of Artsakh, to a point of being decorated for his merit by none other than his enemy of today, Levon Ter Petrossian. Moreover, I doubt that that smallest protester of the Diaspora who shudders at the thought of any sell-out of the Genocide or of Karabagh, is more conscious than him that nothing can be given away on these fronts. Finally, to continue along the same line, it would be appropriate to recognize that the Turks are facing a counter-negotiator who knows how to skillfully play the rules of international law. Here is a man, who had shamelessly “seen” himself as president, several months before the actual elections; and who became one, even at the cost that he had to pay, meaning, by disregarding any transparency whatsoever; a man who practices democracy by lying, by low blows and by an iron fist. A man, who without second thought, leaves the opposition drooling over him in public. This man is surely tough, cunning, a warrior, a Machiavellian, but no one should tell me that he is soft or naïve.

In this game with the Turkish State, he knows that he has to take risks. But he also knows that the biggest risk for Armenia, which the Diaspora is not even able to measure, is the risk of isolation. We have said it: the countries that surround Armenia are unstable. They are not immune to conflicts that could explode overnight, resulting in the closing of their doors at the slightest heating up of issues. If Serge Sarkissian would not look today to push open the Turkish door, tomorrow, in the case of problems on its Northern or Southern borders, we would reproach him of not foreseeing what happened. Because, as the adage goes, to govern is to foresee.

In this case, does the Diaspora have its say? But also, should it determine how it projects itself as a national consciousness?

For the moment, I shall focus on two of its principle aspects. The first, of its being a force for mobilization, the other as a power for economic solidarity. The mobilization for the recognition of the genocide has been taken on mainly by the troops of a party, that was traditionally, albeit blindly, active in the defense of national interests. Those who are raising the red flag today and throw suspicion on Serge Sarkissian by accusing him of a total sell-out of even that which he has defended with arms, are close to a caricature that is playing on fears and frustrations, reviving old myths and utopias. For that, the more moderates who rub shoulders with the extremists, become extremists themselves, and the more naives fall into the trap of overbidding on emotions. They tell me that, on this issue, it is better to preach the worst possible outcome to avoid any potential future inconveniences, even when they are hoping that those would never come to be. But the Diaspora is also a force of economic solidarity, without who Armenia would have been in a much worse state. The Diaspora is not only the outcome of the Genocide but also a political construct willed by the Armenian state since its independence. By effectively forcing men to work in foreign lands, the State relieves itself from its own responsibilities and receives support from this source of wealth which is more or less a co-opted for the patriotic cause. The financial aid that every exiled person brings to their parents and children is like a manna that directly or indirectly contributes to the functioning of the country. As for the Diaspora resulting from the Genocide, it also contributes to fill in the gaps left by the Armenian state by its targeted aid (telethons, twinning of cities etc.) or distributed assistance through various associations. Not counting all those cousins in foreign lands helping their families or even those generous donors who profit from their trips to Armenia to save strangers by issuing them micro credits. We must also mention all those of the Diaspora who bring assistance to Armenia on a purely cultural front in its broadest sense (courses, training, events etc.). Resulting, and I do not hesitate to say this, as I have always claimed, that those members of the Diaspora who feel that sense of responsibility towards Armenia can be considered as cultural or economic citizens of the country. Even when they do not have the full status of the de facto citizen. It is also true that the Diaspora does not receive in return the political consideration that its contribution to the country can make it hope for. More precisely, today, in this affair of the Protocols that touches the essence of its battle against the Turkish State, the Diaspora would have counted for nothing. And for a reason.

Today, this Diaspora has just received a cold shower. That is, since independence, this power for solidarity that it has represented seems to have turned to be a lost cause. By not asking for any political counterweight in exchange, the financial contributors of the Diaspora have become the cuckolds of Armenia. Not only is their assistance partially or even completely diverted (like in the case of the rescue aid provided during the earthquake), but it is always unilateral (allowing thus the oligarchs and politicians of “business” to enrich themselves and to shamelessly build sumptuous homes). Since independence, and in spite of the efforts of the Diaspora, which concentrated mostly on Karabagh, the Armenian countryside has languished in a destitute poverty. One is forced to admit that the Armenian Diaspora, not having a voice on the internal political stage of the country, could not monetize its financial assistance into forcing the Armenian State to develop a real social policy. This demonstrates the level of political contempt assigned to the Diaspora Armenians which is profoundly humiliating in view of the financial interest it represents. The creation of a ministry of the Diaspora is simply designed to channel the external wealth towards the country (for example by the multitude of village sponsorships by wealthy Armenians or aid to individuals via micro credits).

It is therefore not surprising that today the Diaspora feels cheated. In fact, from the point of view of Armenia, it never amounted to much. (The Aghperoutyoun is just an illusion: between the “brother” of Armenia and his “brother” of the Diaspora, the relationship is one of a con-artist thief and his naive victim). Today, the Diaspora pays the price of having managed the suspect liabilities of the Armenian State too complacently. When Serge Sarkissian instituted himself at the head of the country under fraudulent conditions which we knew about, when he threw his opponents in jail, when he continues to incarcerate Diasporans who have fought for Karabagh, and even denies them Armenian citizenship, the representatives of this same Diaspora were never so furious and menacing as they are today, when it is “their” Genocide that is at stake. As if the dead were more alive for them than the actual living. By not supporting the democratic opposition which has been screaming all year-long against the absurdities and deafness of the Sarkissian regime, by leaving to their fate a countryside that has been willingly abandoned, by not denouncing firmly the white genocide of economic emigration, the Diaspora should have expected to one day receive back the “fair” change for its coin. What government-opposing citizen of Armenia, by now a veteran of protest meetings, would not smile bitterly after reading or hearing the media reports about the incidents related to the visit of his president in Paris; what he has been screaming for months: “Sarkissian, resign!”.

In fact, the unacceptable and the dangerous in this story of the Protocols is that at the moment when Sarkissian faces the Turks, his regime still has not settled the internal and dark accounts plaguing the country. Democracy is not appeased; the murders of March 1st remain unsolved; justice is under the boot of power; the economy is in total disequilibrium at the expense of the rural countryside; Mafioso oligarchs are thriving and the Karabagh issue is still without a solution. For a country so young, so fragile and so small as Armenia, these negative and uncertain components constitute a weakness, if not a major fault line for our national destiny. There is no doubt that these unresolved problems constitute as many time bombs. If the Diaspora was a real political force, it would have not missed the chance to warn this government, one that plays with the truth and governs with cynicism. Furthermore, it would have been necessary for this Diaspora to be sensitive to the warning signs that were apparent here and there by giving voice to those who have never been afraid to tear up the flags beneath which lurks a culture of self-hatred. Where we see today that everything is connected. A complicit silence and blind sanctification of the nation have produced these censures in the Diaspora, with the effect of encouraging the abuses that have been the endemic rot on the socio-political fabric of the country. By diverting attention to the intense struggle against denial, the Diaspora has nourished complacencies towards the Sarkissian regime that have come back today to haunt away what is most dear to it. Not only do they undermine the goal of Genocide recognition and reparations by the Turkish State, but they also endanger a country which probably is not in a position to confront the opening of borders with any confidence.

It would however be wrong to reproach the Diaspora for being a force prey to distraction. What force is it with respect to the Armenian State? Its representatives have absolutely no legitimacy, and at a minimum, whoever they may be, they never even asked me for permission to speak on my behalf. As such, the Armenian State, which we would have the right to condemn on many fronts, is facing a nebulous entity led by militant forces that monopolize the Diasporan voice in tune with an ideology which they want to believe as expressing the ideals of all. We also could not blame this Diaspora for being too late in organizing itself into an external political force, capable of influencing the destiny of the country and leading a unified battle for the recognition of the Genocide. The hazards of contemporary history did not allow it to happen. But it seems that today, because of the signing of the Protocols, this serious crisis wedging itself between Armenia and the global Armenian Diaspora, has to accelerate the process of creating a structure capable of playing in the political decisional arenas of the country. Also, the recent closing of the daily Haratch has violently shaken the spirits of many, who today see very clearly the dangers threatening the existence of the Diaspora itself. They hasten to establish an inventory list for our destiny, hoping that they will be persuasive enough to reorient the elements of our survival in a more pragmatic direction. It remains to be seen whether the key persons who have contributed unconsciously to the fossilization of our culture will follow these “lesson givers”.

What remains is that Turkey will have succeeded in neutralizing the Diaspora, as it would be in such a case, by establishing State-to-State relations with Armenia. However, in this context, the Diaspora does not constitute a State. Not even a State in Exile.

Some believe that the recognition of the Genocide is a moral matter. One should admit that principles of morality are more and more present in the political consciousness of our times, even when it is due, on the one hand, to the European principles of pacification of peoples, and on the other, to the new American deal. But, if a criminal does not recognize his crime except when constrained and forced, there is no reason to think that the Turkish State would cede anything due to moral pressure at the price of its own interests. In fact, it is difficult to see any country cede away even an ounce if it has nothing to gain. However, it is inside Turkish civil society itself that this consciousness of the perpetrated evil could result in action and eventually push for a change in mentality. It is also true that those who advocate a confrontation with the Turkish state have neither the time nor the means to wait. This faith will only bear fruit if it was supported by a new structuring of the worldwide Diaspora in order to effectively and relentlessly denounce a denial that has lasted too long, where those who are ignorant thereof can easily become accomplices to it.

Ultimately, it seems that this identity crisis that our Diaspora is going through, making itself immediately felt due to the loss of the Haratch newspaper and the issue of the Protocols, has no other cause but the hypertrophied excess of “Genocidal” thought, within a persistent denialist context, which in turn has reduced to nothingness the only thing which could have given breathing room to the spirit, namely culture. Not a fossilized culture condemned to a cult of language, of Church, and I do not know what other myth, but a culture that is living, loving and humorous. Instead, we have managed to make our artists run away, to contort our thought, to practice censorship and ostracism, to transform the Genocide into a castrating ideology.

Der Voghormia ! Der Voghormia !

Denis Donikian

Why I Cannot Be a Conservative/ Part III: The Armenian Perspective

2008-10-14T13:06:00.000-07:00

A. A Conservative’s Public Statement about Conservatism

In a public interview (Horizon Armenian Weekly, October 6 2008), an Armenian candidate, running this year under the Conservative banner for Canadian parliamentary elections, said that although he was a lifelong servant of the Liberal Party, he came to realize that most Armenians were of a Conservative mentality, particularly after the vote on same-sex marriages passed in Parliament, after which he could no longer face questions of his children and hence that was one of the main reasons he switched allegiance.

Now this gentleman is fairly articulate. If you speak with him, you will immediately be struck by the impressiveness of his mastery of the spoken Armenian, English and French languages. It says on his website that he has studied political science and business administration and has a “rich public experience at municipal, provincial, federal and international levels” in several public service fields, ranging from immigration to status of women, from official languages to aboriginal issues and so on. The natural assumption should be that he at least understands the basics of the legislative process if not the details, and as a candidate who had a fair chance of getting into Parliament to “make the Armenian voice be heard in Ottawa” (as he publicly claimed in several speeches), his statements need to be taken very seriously indeed.

In the above mentioned excerpt he actually makes three distinct statements:

a) That he has served the Liberal Party of Canada.
b) That the issues of same-sex marriage made him face his personal conscience and he could not face that reality as a Liberal, suggesting that he was personally opposed to the matter (i.e. that Liberals forced it on the population and that Conservatives have a more principled approach to this issue).
c) That Armenians are in general of a Conservative mentality, therefore suggesting that he would feel more at home within the Conservative Party.

I will not comment on part a) as that is of course a personal matter of definition. What does “service” mean? Whether it includes employment or not? In what proportions? 20% volunteerism and 80% paid positions or the reverse? The assumption should always be that he is truthful.

As for part b) I would like to state that at best, it represents a profound misunderstanding of the Canadian legislative process; at worst, it would be an even profounder misleading of the Armenian electorate. Here is why:

i) Marriage and civil union is actually a provincial jurisdiction from a ceremonial perspective. No Canadian-Armenian I know can show me a marriage certificate issued by the Federal government. Federal legislation on the topic defines the overall legal framework of how rights and obligations flow from the definition of marriage, to ensure uniformity of treatment of the topic across the country, and to ensure the protection of rights. In this specific case, Quebec and seven other provinces and jurisdictions (i.e. the vast majority of the Canadian jurisdictions) had already either passed legislation legalizing civil same-sex marriages and had in fact enforced all other aspects related to the matter (e.g. spousal pensions, disability benefits etc.), or their highest courts had pronounced in favor of legalizing same-sex marriages on the basis of non-discrimination. As far as the suggested “outrage” goes, the time for it had long been in the past.
ii) Any Supreme Court decision automatically creates new law; that is the reason why that court chooses the cases it takes on very carefully and takes great care in explaining the decisions. It does not want to create legislative vacuum. Grace periods are allocated to Parliament to bring legislation in-line with the court decisions and so on. In the specific case of same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court had already pronounced an opinion on the matter and not only had they explained that defining same-sex marriage would be legal and within the broader legislative jurisdiction of Parliament, but that the religious freedoms defined in the Canadian Charter of Rights would protect religious officials and communities, should they refuse to perform them. Therefore, in the end, the issue was a matter of detail as to who voted for and who voted against. Parliament had no choice but to enact it, because by not doing so, it would have gone against the Supreme Court and, under the current level of division of powers with vast decentralization given away to the Provinces, it would have made the Federal government unable to ensure the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Something which is its constitutional duty to uphold.
iii) The actual piece of legislation is called The Civil Marriage Act; note the title of the act. It is only relevant to civil marriage; in fact, it goes to great length to ensure that the rights of religious communities and institutions are protected and that they are not forced to perform religious ceremonies that they feel would go against their religious principles. Therefore, to suggest that Canadian law brought in by a Liberal government actually could force Armenian churches to perform same-sex marriages is either blatantly ignorant or just a gigantic lie of Goebbelsian proportions. Furthermore, some religious congregations, themselves bitterly divided over the issue, have actually split up; for example, some congregations in the Anglican Church of Canada have decided to allow such marriages in a religious ceremony and some have decided not to. To further suggest, as some of our religious leaders have done so, that this matter is uniformly antichristian and therefore un-Armenian (whatever that may mean) is not having one’s facts straight.
iv) The real issue is not even related to homosexuality. The real issue in this case is related to the rights and privileges that flow in matters like taxation, pension legislation, disability and insurance benefits, inheritance rights etc. that result from the definition of marriage and what such a committed relationship entails. Marriage is defined in a variety of forms of legal contracts and rights as well as different types of sharing of different assets etc etc. Armenians might not know it or understand it (except that those contractual details hit them in the face when they get divorced), but ignorance of the law is no excuse. In fact, it is up to our so-called leaders to educate our community about these issues, and up to our representatives (especially elected ones !!!) to ensure that we understand the laws of the land we live in. The other alternative is of course to keep them ignorant of reality because ignorance allows for easier manipulation.

So much for points a) and b) but, I think the candidate in question is making a profound statement in his point c).

This, of course, regardless of the fact whether he is expressing a personal conviction or suggesting that he would have a better chance of being elected as a Conservative because of an ideological position of the electorate. If he is truthful, and he was a Liberal for twenty years, then at least for some of that period he must have been living with a personal lie. His statement about Armenian conservatism though merits very serious analysis.

B. The Origins of Armenian Conservatism: Tribalism, Subjugation, the Armenian Church and Anti-secularism

The conservative mentality has deep roots in the Armenian community both in the Diaspora, and in Armenia proper.

I think that this kind of worldview has its roots in four other concepts that have been a key part of our history and have shaped our identity. Furthermore, these four concepts are not in isolation but have in the past, and also largely in the present, interacted in a mutually reinforcing way to entrap our thought and to limit the way we look at ourselves today.

1. The first is tribalism. Tribalism is the seed form of nationalism. It does not necessarily always evolve as such, but all forms of nationalism have germinated from a historical tribal origin. It could be argued that monolithic nation-states like Armenia, of almost exclusively a single ethnicity, actually come the closest to a tribe; both from the point of view of its identity and from the point of view of collective behavior.

I chose tribalism, because the tribe does not tolerate dissent from existing structures, rituals and social norms. Why? Because a tribe has determined that whatever is its state it is the optimal for survival. That is why tribes are vulnerable since they cannot rapidly adapt to changing conditions. In the modern world, all tribes or groups manifesting tribal behavior are doomed to become extinct. It is not a question of if, but of when.

A tribe is essentially the human equivalent of an ant colony. Ant colonies have evolved to a quasi-stable evolutionary behavior over millions of years and it would be hard to imagine them otherwise. I have one of the trees in my backyard infested by carpenter ants. My gardener tells me that the best way to get rid of them is to feed them syrupy water laced with boric acid, by putting it in a couple of dishes around the tree. The worker ants always carry the nutrition to their queen and they will feed her poison until she dies. Once she dies, the colony will leave as it will lose the purpose of its existence. The evolutionary progression of carpenter ants has not prepared them for human assault based on treachery.

Why are tribes formed? The anthropological answer is, to cooperate to control access to scarce resources like land, water and food. This would also mean to deny those resources to those outside the tribe, and to protect the tribe from external aggression of other tribes. Tribalism, as a raison-d’être, divides the world into US and THEM.

Tribalism is a typical reaction of groups under siege (or who think they are under siege). Now, that aggression could be real or could be imagined, but tribalism is also invoked by those who are in a privileged position within the tribe to either continue to hold that position or to expand it. In other words, they control by invoking fear. In the extreme case, tribal behavior leads to xenophobia, racism and even genocide. Almost all of these reprehensible positions are the results of ultra-nationalism which in its essence adopts the lowest form of tribal behavior.

Individualism and free thinking have no place in a tribe. It has no use for it and deems it downright dangerous. Extreme conservatism is the norm. That is why Nazis hated culture. So did Stalinists and Ittihadists and Kemalists and Falangists and Fascists. So did the Catholic Inquisition that stifled scientific thought. Burning of dissenters at the stake is ultimately a tribal “invention”.

Does this mean that an evolution of tribal attitudes is never justified? Of course not. One of the reasons Armenians are tribal is because they have been truly under siege and have been on the verge of extermination. The threat to our existence has been and continues to be very real. In a sense, our geography demands tribalism. However, tribalism carries in itself the seeds of its own destruction for two reasons a) Because it eliminates dissent and hence opportunities to learn to face newer threats and b) The siege mentality creates tremendous opportunities for demagogues, dictators, false prophets, fake Messiahs, snake oil salesmen and all the other panoply of fraudsters and power hungry “leaders” to exploit the tribe. Since critical thinking is eliminated, mind control is very easy.

Both Armenia and the Diaspora suffer from both of these syndromes. That is the reason why they are still struggling with the implementation of democracy in Armenia, although many are arguing that it is because we have not had enough time after over 70 years of Communist rule. They fail to realize that, historically, successful democracies have been implemented in Latin America or Africa after centuries of colonial rule within a comparable time frame. Another such example would be India, the world’s largest democratic state.

The Diaspora has actually never had a single successful example of democratic institutionalization (those who think that the church is democratic, please read paragraph 3. of this section). This is even more striking, since a large part of the Diasporan Armenian population has been living over half a century in Western liberal democratic societies. I believe that tribalism is the main culprit here as well. An attitude of “ Հայկական է, պատուական է - haygagan eh, badvagan eh” (“what is Armenian, is always honorable”), which pushes any institutional critique or organizational attempt at critical review into the margins.

In a striking example of tribalism, when I and several others decided not to support the above-mentioned candidate, we were branded by some of our community “leaders” as “traitors to our nation”. At least one of us was actually physically assaulted by a gang of about ten goons sent by a known community organization. And this happened in Canada, in October of the year 2008. One of my good friends actually told me that regardless of who the candidate is and regardless of his/her personal qualities and regardless of his/her political positions, it is our duty to support them because he/she is an Armenian. This is a clear illustration of tribalism, because it is essentially saying that opinions do not matter, policy does not matter, personal qualities do not matter, freedom of thought does not matter, furthermore it clearly suggests that I as a person, even with a long and public track record of not only serving the community but working for helping Armenia and the cause of Genocide recognition, I would be branded a “traitor” and hence physical violence would be justified against me or others who are also independent thinkers.

In an extreme related analogy of such tribalism, one would rightfully conclude that electing Armenians into the Ottoman Parliament ultimately did not help any Armenians in the Empire whose “leaders” had essentially decided to cooperate with the CUP. Who was opposed to this position? The legendary General Antranig. His reward for this lucidity was expulsion from the ranks of the ARF in the 1907 Congress of Vienna!!!

2. The second reason for the inherent conservatism of Armenians is subjugation. Conquered people are essentially conquered by their spirit. Subjugation is the loss of that spirit, as the conquered subject becomes only worried about one thing. Physical survival.

The Armenian spirit was conquered by the Ottomans and later by the Stalinists. Likely through the extreme violence perpetrated throughout the earlier period of the Ottoman conquest. We know what the later period brought. The greatest of all crimes, The Genocide.

Subjugation also differs from tribalism, because ultimately, any conquered people are kept conquered with two extremely effective methods. A network of informants, and a “ruling” elite from within them to ensure the continuation of the conquest. This is the only way empires can survive. King Herod was a member of such a co-opted elite during Roman times. The British Empire was kept alive in India due to the “tolerance of the rule” of the maharajas. The Nazis always put in local collaborators in charge, even among the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. The American empire of modern times has left CIA supported tin-pot dictators all over the globe. The Soviets ruled by local Communist chiefs in the Soviet republics and the other Eastern European countries. This is a much more cost-effective method of control than stationing vast armies in all the territories.

The ultimate purpose of these two methods to subjugate is to ensure that a) the financial wealth and economic resources of the conquered is transferred to the conqueror and b) that the conquered are kept under control not to rebel, not to think about their collective future, not to aspire for improvement of their sort and so on. And of course, the local intermediaries acquire part of the transferred wealth but mostly also get a certain “leadership” status. If they do not fulfill their function, then they are immediately replaced.

Who has played this role in assisting the conquerors in our subjugation? It could very well be argued that since we lost our last historical state (The Kingdom of Cilicia) in 1375, that role was largely played by the Armenian Church. It came to be viewed as the replacement of the state, occasionally acted as our tax collector, and in Ottoman times, that role that it played was finally enshrined in the Ottoman legislation as the millet (community) system for non-Moslems. It recognized the Patriarch of Constantinople as the highest authority representing the Armenian Ottoman subjects in all matters, whether religious or secular or political and the only institution that had official direct access to the Sublime Porte or the Sultan himself.

During the Stalinist regime, that same role was played by local party chiefs and Commissars in Armenia. In the Diaspora, that role was transferred to the political parties co-opted by the CIA and the KGB.

Another example of a country actually governed to this day by millet-ism is the country that was my birthplace, Lebanon. Its governance is built around structures of religious communities. Secterianism is king. The notion of citizenry and the rights and privileges that flow from it is only relevant within the context of their religious affiliation. We all know the consequences.

If you look at the common thread amongst all of these structures in the appropriate time periods, you will rapidly notice two prominent characteristics. Firstly, an extreme conservatism that tries to keep and literally enforce the status quo, secondly a major disdain for free thinking and critical analysis. While you could argue that it is natural for any structure in power to resist its opponents, these ones had the additional task and a whole raison-d’être to assist other masters. If you overlay this reality with a network of informants, you could perhaps reach a conclusion that they did not have much choice. I happen to think otherwise, as we have remarkable exceptions that have shown great courage; these include people like His Holiness Khrimyan Hayrig, His Holiness Karekin I Hovsepian, Yeghishe Tcharents, Shahan Natali, Antranig Dzarougian and many others. These people made tough choices in favor of a critical approach to the issues they were facing.

Therefore, the structures that perpetuated and assisted in our subjugation, by their very nature, must be conservative. That is why Hagop Baronian starved to death. That is why Gostan Zarian and Shahan Shahnour, the two greatest Armenian writers of modern times were both vilified by the Armenian established structures. That is why many of our intellectuals were literally denounced to the Ittihadists and the Stalinists.

3. The third agent of conservatism is the Armenian Church. By this I mean the Armenian Apostolic Gregorian Church that is one of the oldest in the world and has now been around for over 17 centuries. Conservatism of course is part of any Orthodox religious dogma. And since, the Armenian identity is very much wrapped around the concept of this church, its institutions, its traditions and so on, therefore its impact on the Armenian psyche is more than profound.

There is however an untold and hence lesser known story of our people which is this. For close to one thousand years of those seventeen centuries Armenia was the cradle of amazing social reformist movements based on different interpretations of Christianity. From the 3rd century AD and up to the 13th, the region of Armenia has been the birthplace of vast heretical movements inspired by Gnostic Christianity that had converts among millions of Armenians and whose influence extended all the way to the Byzantine emperors, the two major of these movements being the Paulicians and the Thontracites. These heretical doctrines (by the measure of their times) espoused concepts such as the equality of sexes, inheritance rights for women, the right of women to choose who to marry, a simpler and populist conduct for the clergy, and an interpretation of the Holy Scriptures based on concepts of social justice and resource sharing, rejection of dogmatic ritual and religious intermediary in favor of a direct interlocution with God and so on. In short, these concepts were extremely forward looking for their period and had a long term influence on European reformist movements of later times like the Cathars, the Bogomils, and all the way to the Protestant Reformation.

Needless to say that the Armenian Church, in alliance with the ruling class of the time, waged a war of extermination against these dissenters. Their campaigns included vicious propaganda, forced conversions, torture and downright murder that would number in the tens of thousands per incident. Still, to imagine that even with such violence perpetrated against them, these movements managed to survive close to a thousand years, so how deeply rooted they must have been among the population. This part of the history of the Armenian Church remains to be discovered and analyzed, but more than clearly demonstrates the level of conservatism our church espouses and the lengths it would go to for the preservation of the status quo. A feat that was slightly later matched and exceeded by no lesser an institution than the Catholic Church, its wars, its Inquisition and its intrigues.

One could further argue that the true Ottoman subjugation period arrives at the tail end of this period, i.e. in the late 14th century and by that time, the population had been so exhausted and intellectually, spiritually and militarily depleted that it became easy prey to the invading hordes. It is in this period that the Church essentially became the de facto stand-in for an Armenian state and by the 19th century was ready to step in as the legal structure that takes over that function fully.

To further illustrate this institutional conservatism, it is interesting to note that the last organizational reform of the Armenian Church dates back to the 19th century inspired largely from the Ottoman millet-ist structure and is touted as a great democratic achievement, it is called the National Constitution (Ազգային Սահմանադրութիւն - Azkayin Sahmanatroutyoun); on the Russian Tzarist regime side (Eastern Armenia) it is called Polozhenie (Statutes) and was put in place in 1836. Notice that none of these nomenclatures in anyway suggest that they are about the governance of a church. Imagine if the regulations governing the Church of England were called the National Constitution. That would be unthinkable.

4. The fourth and final force for conservatism is the strong anti-secularism among Armenians, in Armenia and especially in the Diaspora.

The anti-secularist behavior comes primarily from the domination of the Church in the Diasporan governance structures. Most Armenians regard their church leaders as the head of the community. As explained earlier, this is largely caused by the historical unfolding of the role of the Church. In Armenia, because religious freedom was largely suppressed during the Communist period, a return of those freedoms has now swung the pendulum in the completely opposite direction, once again reinforcing the position of the Church.

The other main reason is that because of the disappearance of our intellectuals, due to successive waves of murder and persecution, the concept of a civic society (whether in the Diaspora or Armenia) based on a secular discourse has neither had the time to form nor the opportunity to hold root.

This leadership and institutional void has been filled by the most obvious candidate, the Church, basically getting us right back where we started from. That is the mutually reinforcing result of these forces that feed Armenian conservatism. A Diaspora that embraces a secular worldview would allow a very serious questioning of itself and its tenets, its beliefs about equal rights for everyone, its educational structures and contents, its self organization and so on. A Diaspora where the fundamental organizational definition revolves around a religious doctrinal axis can only be what it is today. That is why many Diasporan institutions, even when they are secular, feel that they need the official seal of approval of a Catholicos or an Archbishop or a Bishop. That is why, the lion’s share of expenditures in the Diaspora, donations and community investment projects are based on church construction and/or church-based initiatives.

C. Long Term Attitudes towards Intellectual Output

In a lecture I gave at Columbia University in March of 2008, I argued that the modern day Armenian intellectual has disappeared from the Diasporan public stage, largely because there is actually no more demand for Armenian intellectuals. You can download that lecture in its entirety from my download site here.

However, that is only part of the picture. While Armenians like to project the image of a nation that has produced a lot of intellectuals, and of international caliber at that, it is still very debatable whether our intellectuals are taken seriously or even listened to at all.

All writers and free thinkers of all nations have their respective detractors. In the case of Armenians, our intellectuals have been persecuted, despised, exiled and murdered by our oppressors, but also denounced, isolated and literally starved to death by fellow Armenians. Shahnour and Zarian, the two greatest Armenian writers were viciously attacked to the very end.

This anti-intellectualism leads to interesting wide spread phenomena. In the absence of any strong state or organizational constructs with any semblance of legitimacy, there is also a wide absence of accountability towards the community. Accountability not only in the financial sense, but in the sense of decision making that impacts the community itself. For example, many community “leader”s speak in the name of the whole community essentially suggesting that there is such legitimacy when there is none. When bishops or chairmen or presidents speak in the public media they do not speak in the name of their respective organizations, they speak in the name of the whole or part of the community. This is quite frustrating to anyone who pays serious attention.

Another example is the haphazard approach to institution building (or dismantling) without public consultation. Churches, schools, community centers etc. are built, sold off, dismantled or shut down with a decision making process that is extremely closed and is usually taken by the very few in charge. Yet those decisions impact the lives of all the community and its future. Furthermore, the fundraising for those institutions is also largely done from within the communities who again have no say in how these institutions evolve in the end. This would be the equivalent of taxation without any representation.

Finally, there is the “living in a bubble syndrome”. Recently, a good and erudite friend of mine told me that as he regularly reads the Diasporan Armenian mass printed media, he was stunned that the main issues of the day of the countries that these media are published in are rarely, if at all reflected in them. There is almost no coverage of big societal debates there (e.g. the issue of same-sex marriage in Canada, the coverage of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, environmental issues and how to tackle climate change). It is as if the community is completely isolated from the outside world. This was a startling observation reflective of the state of the tribal existence of the community. When was the last time any of our community centers actually held public debates on these key topics of the day? When was the last time we had public political debates (as in politics of the countries we live in) in any shape or form in our centers or church basements? When was the last time that our traditional organizations and media, whether print or electronic had any reader or listener input, published letters to the editor, had a comment section on their websites? This could of course be explained by the fact that the average Armenian does not care to write, comment or express an opinion. I happen to believe otherwise, but even if this were true, it would demonstrate how we as a community have reached a point of apathy and are now mere “consumer”s in the eyes of our “leadership”. The role of us as people is only relevant when we are solicited for funds. Again, taxation without any representation whatsoever.

Why is this related to anti-intellectualism? Because in the absence of organizational checks and balances, the critical thinkers, the intellectuals, the ones who think beyond the boundaries of their tribes provide the healthy stimulus to allow the other members of the community to think critically as well. Hence our thinkers, rare as they are, have a doubly important role, to hold a mirror to our face to allow us to see ourselves the way we are.

And perhaps therein lies the reason they are disliked. As demonstrated by Part I of this essay, in the vast majority of cases, intellectuals cannot be conservatives. In fact, it would almost be a contradiction.

Armenian conservatism has successfully driven away the Armenian intellectuals. Unfortunately, we ignore them at our own peril. Every society that has eliminated critical thinking has either disappeared or has been relegated to the status of a third, fourth or even fifth world society. Today, we are definitely in that company and descending down the ladder.

D. Education, Demographics and the Multiple Solitudes They Create

From the high level perspective of organized populations, the Diaspora can be viewed as two “substructure”s. One that is “organized” around the traditional institutions, mainly the Church, and then the traditional political parties, the schools, the community centers etc. Along with a second “substructure” that is more fluid, less organized in the traditional sense but that can be arguably mobilized around key issues, e.g. Genocide recognition, helping Armenia etc.

From a demographic perspective, it is increasingly clearer that the second group is the one that is likely larger in numbers, is more affluent, particularly in the communities of the Western liberal democracies, is more educated and also most likely of a younger average age.

Now, if we assume that this is a realistic representation, we can see that the demographic inertia is in favour of the second group. However, the organizational vehicles which can act and channel the energy of the community are permanently locked in the old ways that reject innovation, as outlined above. The organizational structures will be of a more conservative outlook, both on a political compass, and from approaches to issues facing the community. Yet, the growing demographic force pushes us away from Conservatism. This is a source of serious conflict.

It is precisely for this reason that the youth are not present in Diasporan institutions. Exceptions only confirm the overall trend. The youth are disinterested because they are ultimately in a conflict and they see no common ground between who they are as individuals and what the traditional institutions stand for. That is also why the fewer and fewer youth who are active become eventually disinterested, disillusioned and usually leave never to come back.

This could also be the reason that explains our “dividedness”. The traditional organizations continuously trumpet that we do not have “unity”. But their version of unity is understood to mean hegemony of ideas. This is fundamentally unacceptable for the second group, especially within the lack of the larger context of any truly representative and publicly accountable structure with any legitimacy. The prediction of course being that such a “unity” will never be achieved within the current framework of any traditional organizational structure. Therefore, spending time and resources on trying to achieve them is at best a Quixotic quest. At worst, it is a waste of severely limited resources.

From the perspective of Armenia, the two larger societal divisions are actually the “haves” and the “have-not”s. The former are only interested in accumulating wealth and power at any cost. Any political position is therefore filtered purely through this specific prismatic view, and hence by definition they will be major resistors to any initiative that can challenge that position. Therefore, they will be of a conservative outlook. That is largely why the numerous political parties in the Armenian Parliament are either mostly of a right-of-center ideology or nationalistic or ultra-nationalistic. The “have-not”s are actually devoid of any power. The only interesting characteristic of the “have-not” group is that it is now also largely populated with the older and now increasingly with newer intellectuals that have the brain power to sustain a deeper discourse of societal evolution. What will be the outcome, or whether they will become at all relevant remains to be seen.

E. Examples of “Thinking Outside the Box”: Failures and Successes

It would however be intellectually dishonest to present a picture of the evolution of Armenian history form the conservative perspective alone. The fact remains that throughout the course of the past 3-4 centuries we have seen several attempts at anti-conservatism. This would be termed today as thinking outside the box (lateral thinking).

Not all of these attempts were successful, in fact some had downright disastrous outcomes for us as a people; the latter would include the adoption of a European socialist political ideology by our older political parties from outside the Ottoman Empire, which essentially tried to bring in a discourse based on a working class that had been “revolutionized” in a capitalistic manufacturing and production facilities and then to forcefully overlay it on a largely backwards, illiterate, feudal and Medieval social setting based on a purely oppressive and violent Ottoman power structure. Yervant Odian does much better than anyone else in satirizing this with his immortal Ընկեր Փանջունի - Unger Panchoonie (Comrade Panchoonie). This was either “incredibly brave or incredibly stupid” as popular wisdom would characterize it, but it definitely was not very smart. The incident at the Ottoman Bank and the collaboration by the ARF with the CUP would fall under the same category.

All of the above are actually the result of extreme short-sightedness and show a lack of proper evaluation of both tactical and strategic alternatives of the times. I think that we must accept that these moments in history belong to all Armenians, not just to a faction, and we must be able to analyze them critically with the modern intellectual tools at our disposal. To date, we have either mythologized this history, or dismissed it; neither approach leading to any improvement of our sort.

There are at least four other cases, of our relatively recent history, which merit close scrutiny. All of them would appear to be projects with no initial hope of success. All of them were in fact successful and have literally saved us as a people. These successes occurred because of lateral thinking, but also because their initiators looked at our historical evolution and conceived a vision of our future as a very long-term strategic option. Thus steering us towards those options gradually and one small step at a time, making many adjustments along the way. They chose a heading instead of a specific short-term goal.

1. The first of these examples is the case of Israel Ori. He was a unique character in our history of the late 17th and early 18th centuries. Imagine an Armenian from the backward Syunik region (granted the son of a Melik), almost single handedly planning to achieve the liberation of Armenia from under the Ottoman and Persian yokes, through the assistance of Western powers. He ends up serving in the army of Louis the XIV, achieving high favor with the political circles there, then moving on to Dusseldorf, befriending the German prince who in turn refers him to the Austrian Emperor, and then on to befriend the Prince of Florence, and Pope Clement XI, all the while, throughout these years, “lobbying” for the liberation of Armenia, and by the way shuttling back to Armenia and again to Europe. Finally learning the greatest of the lessons of diplomacy, that for states to help other people, there should be common interests at play. Once again, arriving at the correct conclusion that Russia would be the only great power that would have interest in the Caucasus, he departs for Moscow to meet Peter the Great to deliver to him the request of Armenians and Georgians to be liberated from Turkish and Persian rule. Further on, once securing agreement, he actually uses his military knowledge to logistically plan the deployment of the Russian forces into the Caucasus. Even more, he volunteers to go to Armenia leading a fact-finding mission, essentially acting as a spy for the Russians in Persia, to map out the terrain for the advancement of the Russian army.

Ori died suddenly in 1711 in Astrakhan at the age of 53. It is due to his efforts that the attention of the Russian court turned towards the Caucasus, and the Russians realized that they would have Armenians as long term allies in the region. His dream was realized about a century later by the advancement of Russian rule into what was then Eastern Armenia. One could argue that although the Tsarist rule was not easy on Armenians, they were certainly better off than their fellow countrymen in Iran or the Ottoman Empire. The core of the population of Eastern Armenia was likely preserved due to this turn of historical events, and perhaps as a result, even the existence of the Armenia of today could be traced back to the efforts of the visionary Israel Ori.

2. The second example of lateral thinking within a strategic vision is that of Fr. Mekhitar Sepasdatsi, the founder of the order of the Mekhitarist monks.

Fr. Mekhitar was of course from Sebaste or Sepasdia, he founded his order in Constantinople in 1701 and in 1715 moved to Venice. There he negotiated to be granted an abandoned island outside the boundaries of the city. The reason that this island was abandoned is because it used to be a quarantine station and a leper colony.

Imagine Fr. Mekhitar settling with his monks on this island. Imagine the hardships of simply living there in the early eighteenth century. Imagine how the place was provisioned with food and water in those times. It must have taken several hours by boat just to get there. Let alone the stigma of leprosy that hung over the place. Imagine how the monastery was literally built by the hands of Mekhitar and his seventeen monks.

The Mekhitarist order transformed the Armenian reality. From that remote location in Italy, for close to three centuries, a beacon of intellectual light shone throughout the darkness of the Armenian existence. The island of St. Lazarus became the center of an intellectual activity that remains unmatched to this day in Armenian history, except perhaps for the Golden Age after the invention of the modern Armenian alphabet in 405 AD. The Mekhitarist Order literally invented the structure of modern Western Armenian, and contributed tremendously to its philological and linguistic evolution. They embarked on a superhuman effort of research and publication in linguistics, grammar, history, language evolution and so on. They published monumental dictionaries. They published Western Armenian translations of the great writers of the time. They even taught Armenian to Lord Byron

They also prepared generations of teaching monks who throughout the history of the order established dozens of schools in Armenian communities around the world and in Armenia. These schools have graduated hundreds of thousands of students. The order published literary and cultural periodicals that kept qualitative pace with the leading international publications of their time. Then, an offshoot of the order established itself in Vienna. For close to two hundred years, the printing presses of the Mekhitarist order were second to none in the world. The combined libraries of the two orders today hold more than 350,000 volumes of books, many of them being unique and ancient publications. The combined scriptural treasury of the Mekhitarists includes more than 6700 illuminated manuscripts (i.e. equivalent to more than the 2/3 of the ancient manuscripts of the great scriptorium in Yerevan, the Madenataran). Many of the monks, like Fr. Ghevont Alishan, became great literary figures. The Renaissance of Armenian language and culture of the nineteenth century, especially that of Western Armenia, can be said to be almost exclusively the achievement of the Mekhitarists.

The greatest of all the Mekhitarist schools, and perhaps of all Armenian schools ever, became the boarding school of Moorat-Raphaelian in Venice proper (named after rich Armenian merchant benefactors from India, Agha Samvel Mgrditch Moorat and Edward Raphael). Throughout the 162 years of its existence it retained one of the highest academic standards in the world and graduated thousands of our community leaders in every field, including some of our greatest writers, intellectuals and political leaders.

Fr. Mekhitar would arguably qualify as one of the greatest Armenians who ever lived. Equal in stature to non other than St. Mesrob Mashdots. He died in 1749 and is buried in St. Lazarus. Three centuries of incredible contributions to our nation, from a vision built around an abandoned leper colony. How lateral and anti-conservative is that.

3. The third example is the one of a much better known institution, the Armenian General Benevolent Union or AGBU.

The general history of the AGBU is widely known, and its impact and prevalence in our communities and in Armenia is well understood. However, the radical issues surrounding its founding and the nation saving impact it had during the post-Genocide period is not appreciated by the general public.

The context of the founding of the AGBU is very important. Here was a philanthropic organization being founded in 1906 in Cairo (which was at the time under British rule) mostly by dissidents from the Ottoman Empire. Its basic concept was to introduce education and emancipation into the feudal and poor hinterland of the Ottoman territory, to assist Armenian families living on the historical lands, to encourage them to stay in their villages and to learn trades in order to discourage migration to the large urban centers. This was an unprecedented initiative in its kind and in magnitude. Furthermore, to achieve this, it was decided to build a unique corporate structure, based on funds and donations earmarked for specific projects, again never before attempted by any Armenian organization; the third characteristic was an apolitical as well as a totally secular approach, the purpose being twofold, to encourage participation of all Armenians from all denominations around the world in this initiative, and to ensure that the Ottoman power structure does not feel threatened politically, particularly because the idea required a mobilization of the population around local chapters to be founded in the Ottoman territories.

Remembering that the founding of the AGBU coincided with one of the bloodiest periods in Armenian history, it is equally amazing how the concept captured the imagination of the majority of the Armenian population of the time. Considering that the Armenian political parties (the Armenagans, the Henchagians and the ARF) had similarly tried to establish themselves among the backward villagers, while running their political organizations from outside the Empire and that they had failed dismally, this achievement by the AGBU is striking. By 1909, the AGBU had chapters in Constantinople, Smyrna, Magnesia (suburb of Smyrna), Mersin, Bursa, Sivas, Erzinjan, Diyarbekir, Aleppo, Ankara, Harput, Erzerum and Dardanelles. In 1913, there were over 80 officially registered chapters in the Ottoman Empire!!!!! The reason for this success vs. the previous failure of the political parties is twofold. The AGBU came to fill in a great need for social support among the population, and its operational model fitted with the needs of the times, inspiring full trust among the donor communities worldwide. The change desired by the AGBU was truly to be brought about over the very long term. It was actually designed like a long-term policy initiative of a government; after all, its founders came from a long tradition of public policy makers.

The Genocide of course wreaked havoc with those plans. The role of the AGBU changed radically, from the role of a nurturer of change, to the role of the preserver of the nation. I will not go into the details of how it mobilized to save the hundreds of thousands of refugees, how the surviving women and children were literally kidnapped back from the clutches of their enslavers, how the orphanages were built, how food, shelter, clothing and medical care was provided in the various camps and so on. These are all on record for the curious to discover. The activities of the AGBU today in the Diaspora and in Armenia are also on public record; therefore they need not be repeated. It is though noteworthy to point out that over 400,000 Armenians receive AGBU services every day.

What is even more astonishing is that during the AGBU nation-saving phase, the precursor institution to the UN was the League of Nations; the League had established an explicit institution called the HCR (High Commission for Refugees) under the leadership of Fridjof Nansen, and which was created exclusively to assist the Armenian refugees. The HCR closely collaborated with and effectively “outsourced” a large part of its operational role to the AGBU. The HCR was so successful in its mission that it received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1938. Furthermore, when the League of Nations was dismantled after WWII, its only sub-organization that was deemed worthwhile to emulate, was carried over to the UN, and that formed the core of services of the nascent international organization was none other than the HCR under its new name, the UNHCR. Thus the AGBU finds itself at the historical point where its actions actually give birth to the greatest international organization, the UN itself. The UN in turn rises from the ashes of the HCR, which ironically was founded to assist the surviving victims of the Genocide of the Armenians. It is therefore a multiple irony that today, many of the member countries of the UN, actively deny that Genocide.

4. The fourth and final example of radical lateral thinking is the Zoryan Institute.

Today, the Zoryan Institute is the primary source of academic information, publications and eyewitness recordings of genocide survivors. Its initiatives have spawned several joint projects like the Genocide Studies program at the University of Toronto, research and publication by great scholars, oral history projects, Turkish-Armenian scholarly dialogue of historians, organizing conferences, advocating for human rights around the world and specifically for freedom of speech in Turkey. You can learn more about them from their website here.

The modern struggle for the recognition of the Genocide of Armenians simply cannot be imagined without the presence of the Zoryan Institute. It is arguably the scholarly foundational pillar from which all other modern initiatives have sprung and from which they receive intellectual nourishment. Still with all due respect to be given to the numerous Armenian Studies programs in the various universities in North America, which however, remained more of local initiatives, rather than being engaged in building networks and programs at the scale that Zoryan has achieved.

Yet once again, this unique institution came about as a radically different thought in the early nineteen eighties. It came about because G. Libaridian and K. Sarkissian realized that to win the battle for Genocide recognition it was not enough to pursue a political approach through the traditional Armenian political party structures in the Diaspora. They realized that a) the Genocide survivors were rapidly disappearing and would soon be all gone and with them all the thousands of eyewitness accounts that remained to be recorded; b) that such work needed to be led by serious modern professionals equipped with modern tools that would enhance the documentation about the Genocide; c) that it was important to start serious academic dialogue with honest Turkish historians, because the history of the Genocide of Armenians is as much a part of the history of Turkey as it is of Armenia; d) that it was important to tell also the numerous positive stories of good-hearted Turks who saved Armenians by risking their lives; e) that the issue of the Genocide of Armenians must be framed as fundamentally a human rights’ issue in order to garner broad international support; and finally, that f) Armenians need to lead an effort in understanding and supporting initiatives to condemn all genocides in order to build alliances with civil society, academics, human rights’ activists, independent and free thinking publishers in Turkey etc. to move the issue of recognition forward by a quantum leap; all of this was necessary, specifically because Turkey was mobilizing at the state level with huge resources allocated to their official campaign of denial.

In hindsight, it turned out that the Zoryan founders were of course right and they might have actually literally saved the cause of Genocide recognition from certain defeat by the state-sponsored propaganda of Turkey. One has to look though at the context of the founding of this unique institution. It was in the period of 1982-84 that the Institute took shape first in the US and then in Canada. What was the state of recognition of the Genocide of Armenians around the world at that time? Politically, there was stagnation; on the ground, the issue of the Genocide was being completely obfuscated by the issue of Armenian terrorism, and by the intra-organizational conflict and murder going on between these various groups. The militant groups that sprung out structurally during the Lebanese civil war had degenerated into mafia-style hit squads. Basically there was no hope on the horizon.

Therefore the founding of the Zoryan Institute was one of the most forward-looking events in the history of the Diaspora. By the very act of its birth it challenged the status quo. That is why it was almost immediately undermined by the traditional organizations in the Diaspora. The political parties were at best neutral. At worst, they worked actively to undermine the Institute because it challenged not only their accomplishments to date but in fact their legitimacy as the torch bearers of the Armenian cause (whatever that meant). That is why party members were threatened with expulsion and effective “excommunication” for supporting the Zoryan Institute. This was conservatism par excellence. Not only the rejection of the new, but also an active mobilization to stifle this innovation and to nip it in the bud.

We should be grateful that they failed miserably.

F. Anti-Conservatism and Secularism as the Way Out of Our Quagmire.

As these four examples clearly illustrate, our anti-conservative initiatives have had profound effects on us as a nation. I am deliberately limiting myself to the last 3 centuries, as it would be difficult (although not impossible) to argue this position for events in the more distant past, where the actual details on the ground would be relatively blurred.

However, at least three of the last four cases mentioned are within the experiential frame of most Armenians alive today. The achievement of Israel Ori can be substantiated within the context of the Armenia that exists and even the successful liberation war in Artsakh can be ultimately linked to his vision of Russian advancement into the Caucasus. The point is though that such amazing achievements were possible and were in fact arrived at against enormous odds.

Another characteristic of all four of these efforts was that they were at the core profoundly secular. The Mekhitarists, while Catholics, never limited their schools, their education programs, their publications and so on to Catholics only, quite the contrary. Israel Ori who worked jointly with the Catholicos of the time, soon realized that true power did not lie in the religious institutions, but that only the secular leaders of his time would help him. It is true that he befriended the Pope, but let us not forget that the Pope of the period was also a worldly leader of the Papal States and led his own armies. In other words, there was rarely any religious connotation to any of these four initiatives.

A secular discourse will by definition also bring a secular worldview. This is not meant to suggest that the Armenian Church should have no place within our institutional framework. The Armenian Church should absolutely play the only role it is best suited and designed to play. That being to focus on the spiritual evolution and emancipation of our people. Its contribution to the shaping of our identity has been historically significant, however, when it acts beyond its initial scope today it would be contributing to an arrested development. There is a valid reason that the fundamental tenets of democracy start to blossom under a clear separation of the state from the church (or religion). Otherwise we have theocracies. Theocracies are not paragons of progressive societies. Apart from the Vatican, almost all the theocracies of the world are Iran, Saudi Arabia and a myriad of states that have the word Islamic attached to their official names. How many Armenians would like to live their lives in such states? Imagine if you are a Christian in Pakistan or a woman in Saudi Arabia? Granted this is an extreme view, but why continue to espouse such a discourse for our country or for the Diaspora?

We are not what we say we are, we are always what we do. One way to look at what defines societies is to look at their overall expenditures. If one, for example, looks at the USA, the overwhelming budgetary allocations of the revenues of the state are spent on the military and defense sector initiatives. Any social spending pales in comparison. That is why the United States is largely a militaristic society, its uneven societal wealth is created through companies engaged in defense related projects, its state priorities are set according to that agenda, and many Americans are directly or indirectly tied to this construct, whether they want to or not. If one looks at Canada, the largest single item spent by all governments combined is related to health care and social services. That is why Canada is the society that it is, and compared to the US it would be considered as largely a welfare state. If one looks at Armenia, close to 10% of its official budgetary expenditures disappear through various corruption channels into the pockets of the oligarchs. That is why Armenia is the country that it is.

If we apply this kind of analysis to the Diasporan communities for instance, one would likely see a picture where over 80% of community capital and operational expenditures are in some way tied into or through projects of Church initiatives. This would suggest that the Diasporan communities are ultimately caught into a self-view that can only (or largely) manifest itself as revolving around a religious axis. This would also further suggest that the Diaspora cannot imagine itself otherwise. Sure we need churches, but those churches should serve for mass, religious celebrations, weddings, baptisms and burials; but most of all to provide spiritual guidance. Anything beyond that, and they actually hinder our evolution and box us in an intellectual mind trap.

The innovative social scientist Abraham Maslow, who literally invented modern marketing, has said “when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem will look to you like a nail”. This is particularly relevant for Diasporan communities because they see the solution of every community issue to be implemented through a church initiative. We need social services? OK, let’s build this church and attach a social service program to it. We need something to attract the youth? Let’s create a youth program under the umbrella of our parish. We need family counseling services? Let’s have the church hire some professionals who could also occasionally volunteer their services. We need a school? Let’s build a Sunday school first attached to the Church. And so on.

Now this approach might have been relevant in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But what it describes is the inability to imagine ourselves except as a church community or a congregation. That is why a vision of ourselves as something greater is practically inexistent. That is also why for instance that we have not managed to build a single art and culture center in all of North America even when the world’s most affluent Armenian communities have lived here for over a century. That is also why we do not have a single Armenian historical museum or gallery that can be of any acceptable caliber to be visited by school children. That is also why we do not have a single Armenian institution in the Diaspora dedicated to producing university level graduate teachers of Armenian language and topics for our numerous schools. That is also why we do not have specialized curriculum experts etc. etc. The list of things we lack and we should have had after such a long existence as a Diaspora is long and it can only be explained at the big picture level. The big picture level is clear, we are trapped as communities as to how we see ourselves. Yes there are exceptions, but these exceptions confirm the reality that is evident, rather than contradict it. We only know how to use hammers, yet to build new things we also need screw drivers, saws, power tools, wrenches and so on. We cannot just hammer away to build a house. It should be quite obvious though that we can demolish a house by just hammering.

What would be achieved by an aggressive secular view of ourselves and an anti-conservative approach?

· We would release the huge potential that exists in the communities and be able to mobilize the youth who are largely disillusioned and do not see our communities as relevant places allowing them the exercise of their intellectual abilities and imagination at its fullest.
· We would be able to attract the diversity of Armenians who have abandoned the communities (and now constitute a majority), because they see themselves more as full-functioning citizens of their countries. Their Armenian identity is just one part of their reality. In other words, their multiple identities are equally important and evolved, and enhance each other. They are not in conflict with themselves. The "organized" communities are.

And that alone is worth a serious try. In fact, anti-conservatism is probably our only guarantee of survival.

I want us to survive, and that is why, as an Armenian, I cannot be a conservative.

Montreal, October 14, 2008
© Viken L. Attarian

Why I Cannot Be a Conservative/ Part II: The Canadian Perspective

2008-10-13T08:45:00.000-07:00

Public Good as a foundation of the Canadian existence

It is always time for the public good. Especially in Canada.

Public good, as within the context of a broader concern for the well-being of society, as well as within the context of the public policy of a governing structure.

In his remarkable and unique analysis of Canada, Reflections of a Siamese Twin (or Canada at the End of the Twentieth Century), published in 1997, the great Canadian author, essayist and philosopher John Ralston Saul convincingly argues that Canada, is actually an experiment in imagination about the public good. He theorizes that, for all intents and purposes, Canada should not be existing as a country because there are too many conflicting forces to tear it apart (English vs. French; West vs. East; rural vs. urban; the vast, resource rich and empty natural expanses of the North vs. the narrow population strip in the South that wants to exploit it; the “have” provinces vs. the “have-not”s; first nations vs. the European colonizers; the immigrant communities vs. the established ones; the proximity to an economic giant and militarily aggressive superpower and on and on). By any “rational” perspective, he argues, the country should have disintegrated within a few months of its inception. Yet Canada exists and is still one of the most desirable places to live in the world. At the time of the publication of the aforementioned book, Canada was actually at the top of the UN Human Development Index survey of countries. J. R. Saul further argues that part of the reason is that the Canada of today was not built by imperial conquest but rather by a gradual compromise of inclusion, in exchange for a participation in, and an extension of, the public good.

This is however in stark contrast with the philosophical underpinnings of a conservative and right-wing perspective, which can best be summarized in a few points of a general political platform.

1. Less government is good government, presumably because there are fewer opportunities to waste taxpayers’ money.

2. Therefore, less government, i.e. a smaller government, should by definition imply lower taxation levels.

3. Less government also implies less influence over the affairs of the citizenry, their roles in society, their lives, their jobs, their health, their businesses.

4. The individual is the building block of society and the individual is glorified. Government should not interfere in the affairs of the individual, except to ensure their safety and safeguard their property. The rights of the individual almost always trump the rights of society, except in cases of criminal offence.

5. Investment is the key to prosperity, as it allows for the creation of jobs and wealth; therefore, the lesser a government interferes with businesses the better off the economy would be, as it will encourage investment by those businesses.

6. Culture, education, knowledge and any intellectual output is only relevant within the context of economic activity and how it creates financial wealth and prosperity.

7. Interference with business would include any process that would increase their costs; since costs are disincentives to investment therefore governments should not increase business costs by regulation, price controls, subsidies, worker right and wage legislation etc.

While there could be a few more of these, they are all related nuances of the mentioned ones; the differences between the various public policy platforms and flavours of conservatism are really about questions of degree. In other words, what is the shade of grey within the half a dozen or so points above?

The backdrop of this policy-based conservatism is always what I described in part I. The two are not disconnected. Why? Because, as you can see from this list, the fundamental underpinning of this policy platform is purely material and economic. The relationship between the citizen and society is defined purely in material terms. Taxation, investment, corporatism and trade. Power is defined as it relates to financial transactions. The disenfranchised are not entitled to any role in the power relationship, because by definition, they have no material value equivalent. There is no place for the public good in this construct. Community is irrelevant.

Now, if John Ralston Saul is right, and I am yet to be convinced otherwise, and public good is actually what is holding the country together, then the dismantling of the public good will actually destroy the foundations of the country. Remove the glue, remove the nails, remove the cement and mortar and your house will no longer hold together. In your pursuit of market efficiency and low costs, you would have reduced the cost of the maintenance of your house; but, not because you became actually very efficient, but because you no longer have a house. You are a street-person. The only thing you can do is sell off the wood, the bricks, the drywall, the plumbing and fixtures to scrap merchants.

This is further illustrated by how Canadians see themselves. When asked about their identity and how they differ from their American neighbours, very few, if any, mention historical events or forms of government (constitutional monarchy vs. republic). The distinctions that most commonly come up is that a) we have publicly funded health care, b) that we have almost free (or relatively very low cost) university education, c) that we are an officially bilingual country (i.e. highly tolerant of our minorities), d) that we follow a policy of multiculturalism (i.e. cultural diversity and integration vs. an American assimilatory melting pot), e) that we have gun control and f) that we have legal abortions and same sex marriages across our country; the more knowledgeable ones will add g) that we have a longer period of unemployment benefits, h) that we have a much more generous maternity and parental benefit program, i) that we do not have a history of military aggression against any country; and finally j) that we have higher taxes and k) that our entrepreneurs and brightest in our society would make much more money if they moved to the US. In other words, the vast majority of things that differentiate us from Americans that we attach any importance to as a society are related to the public good.

Hence, not only is the public good the foundation of our country, it is also the key to our identity as a people; granted, not the only facet of our identity, linguistic identity of the French culture being another key one, but it would be at least as important if not more so.

I for one do not want this glue to disappear, neither rapidly nor gradually. I don’t want anyone to pick off the pieces.

Who would pick off the pieces of my Canada? Those who want to sell it off today and those who want uncontrolled access to our resources. Not our oil, not our forests, but mainly our water. For financial gain now and for future economic and resulting political power. Water is the oil of the 21st century.

Historical landmarks in the evolution of the concept of public good in Canada

I am not of course arguing for an ideological position based solely on expenditures on the public good. A full welfare state would go immediately bankrupt, as Canada almost did in the late eighties and early nineties. I am arguing for a balance that does not neglect the public good but reinforces it instead. It turns out, so did many Conservative governments.

If we examine our history from the perspective of this notion of the public good, we can see that all the governments of Canada, including Conservative ones had a strong sense of it. In fact, Conservative governments contributed tremendously to it. Now this might sound contradictory to what I have been arguing, the question is why did this happen? The answer is simple. Because the population demanded it and any government that did not contribute to the public good, could no longer govern. In fact, the term Red Tory, as in a conservative who believes in the public good is actually almost exclusively a reference to a Canadian political philosophy.

The trend among Conservative governments actually stopped in 1988 with the second mandate of Brian Mulroney. The “Free Trade” government. Canadians soon realized their mistake and as a result, the Conservative party as we know it disappeared from the political landscape. Red Tories as a political force do not exist anymore because of that mistake.

Let us now look back at major milestones (only really major ones) in this process of building our country. Only achievements are listed, societal issues, debates that did not result in concrete results are not part of this list. Since this is just for illustration, I have not put in dates and other commentary (except a few that I could not resist). The list is chronological in order of Prime Ministers since confederation.

- The cross-continental Canadian Pacific Railway, essentially uniting the Atlantic provinces with British Columbia. Achieved under John A. McDonald; a Conservative PM.
- The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (or the RCMP- formerly called the North-West Mounted Police) extending the rule of law across vast swathes of uncharted Northern territories. Achieved under John A. McDonald.
- The completion of the Parliament buildings in Ottawa. Achieved under Alexander McKenzie; the first Liberal PM, and the only one ever with working class roots. He was actually a stonemason. Arguably the most honest of all the Prime Ministers of Canada. He literally refused British knighthood three times.
- Introduction of the secret ballot in Parliament, also by Alexander McKenzie.
- Creation of the Supreme Court of Canada, also by Alexander McKenzie.
- Creation of the Office of the Auditor General, also by Alexander McKenzie.
- Creation of the Royal Military College, also by Alexander McKenzie.
- Creation of the Royal Canadian Navy. Achieved under Wilfrid Laurier, Liberal PM.
- Canada contributes to the building of the British Commonwealth and becomes an equal partner with the other Dominions. Achieved under Robert Borden, Conservative PM.
- Women achieve full voting rights (except in Quebec), also under Robert Borden.
- Agnes MacPhail, the first woman MP elected to Parliament in 1921; achieved under McKenzie King Liberal PM. She ran for the Progressive Party and later joined the CCF, the precursor of the NDP.
- CBC founded under R.B. Bennett, Conservative PM.
- Canada asserts independence from British Crown, between WWI and WWII as well as leading up to WWII, also by McKenzie King.
- Canada helps found the United Nations, also by McKenzie King.
- Canadian John Peters Humphrey of McGill University drafts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN; achieved under Louis St. Laurent, Liberal PM.
- Canada helps to establish NATO, also by Louis St. Laurent.
- Canada helps to solve the Suez Canal crisis, also by Louis St. Laurent.
- Canada is the main architect of UN peacekeeping , achieved by Lester B. Pearson, during the government of Louis St. Laurent. Pearson, then Foreign Minister, wins the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.
- Canada becomes a recognized middle power and a force for peace in the world, also by Louis St. Laurent.
- Canada Council for the Arts is created, also by Louis St. Laurent.
- Canada’s social safety net is created, including family allowances, government funded university and post-secondary education and a very early form of public health services covering hospital expenses, also by Louis St. Laurent.
- The Supreme Court becomes the highest court in the land, and cases can no longer be appealed beyond it to Britain, also by Louis St. Laurent.
- The Canadian Parliament achieves the right to amend the constitution without resorting to debates in the British Houses, also by Louis St. Laurent.
- Newfoundland joins the confederation, also under Louis St. Laurent.
- For the first time, the Governor General is appointed by the Canadian PM, not the British Sovereign, who only approves them, also by Louis St. Laurent.
- Equalization payments are introduced, redistributing the revenues from wealthier provinces to “have-not” provinces, also by Louis St. Laurent.
- Major infrastructure projects that essentially are the tools that have created the Canada of today are put in place like the TransCanada Highway, the St. Lawrence Seaway and the TransCanada Pipeline, also by Louis St. Laurent.
- Canada fights against the inclusion of the apartheid regime of South Africa in the Commonwealth, under John Diefenbaker, Conservative PM.
- Members of first nations recognized as citizens with voting rights, also by John Diefenbaker.
- First aboriginal, James Gladstone, appointed to the Senate, also by John Diefenbaker.
- The Canadian Bill of Rights, a federal statute and the main source of the future Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is introduced by John Diefenbaker.
- Social and infrastructure programs extended to the far North, also by John Diefenbaker.
- Alouette 1, the first Canadian satellite is successfully launched, making Canada the 3rd country in the world to launch a man-made satellite (after the USSR and the USA), also during the time of John Diefenbaker.
- The Canada Pension Plan is introduced, under Lester B. Pearson.
- Canada Student Loans is introduced, also by Lester B. Pearson.
- Universal Health Care is introduced modeled after and with the support of its initiator in Saskatchewan, Tommy Douglas of the NDP, also by Lester B. Pearson.
- The auto-pact with the US is implemented, also by Lester B. Pearson.
- A new Canadian flag, the maple leaf (without the Union Jack) is introduced by Lester B. Pearson. Canada celebrates its 100th anniversary.
- Bilingualism becomes official federal policy and Canada is declared an officially bilingual country, also by Lester B. Pearson.
- Legal equality for women is introduced in all domains, also by Lester B. Pearson.
- The world’s first race-free immigration system based on a system of points is introduced, also by Lester B. Pearson.
- The concept of a “Just Society” with several regional development initiatives is launched, by Pierre E. Trudeau, Liberal PM.
- Terrorist cells of Quebec separatism are stared down by the War Measures Act, also by Pierre Trudeau.
- All federal institutions across the country become bilingual, also by Pierre Trudeau.
- Canada pursues a totally independent foreign policy from the US, also by Pierre Trudeau.
- Anik A1, the world’s first national domestic satellite is launched and brings the CBC to the Far North, also by Pierre Trudeau.
- Petro Canada, a crown corporation, is created, also by Pierre Trudeau.
- Canada joins the G7, also under Pierre Trudeau.
- National Energy Program instituted, also by Pierre Trudeau.
- The Canadian Constitution was fully repatriated from Britain, also by Pierre Trudeau.
- The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is introduced as an integral part of the Canadian Constitution, also by Pierre Trudeau.
- The National Gallery of Canada and the Canadian Museum of Civilization are completed, both being architectural masterpieces, also by Pierre Trudeau.
- To fund government expenditures rather than cut them, 23 of 61 crown corporations are sold off, including Air Canada and Petro Canada; under Brian Mulroney, Conservative PM.
- Canada vigorously opposes South African apartheid and is credited with its demise, by Brian Mulroney.
- Canada leads the world to assist the famine victims in Ethiopia, Jo Clark, former Conservative PM and now Foreign Affairs Minister under Brian Mulroney is the main architect of this move.
- Canada stands up to the US against the Reagan interventions in Central America, under Brian Mulroney.
- Apologies are made and compensation paid to Japanese Canadians for wartime injustices and internment in detainment camps, also by Brian Mulroney.
- Goods and Services Tax is introduced, increasing the spending power of the federal government, also by Brian Mulroney.
- The Free Trade agreement is signed with the US, and later expanded to NAFTA to include Mexico, also by Brian Mulroney.
- First woman prime minister of Canada, and second woman to head a G7 country (after Margaret Thatcher), achieved by Kim Campbell, Conservative PM.
- Federal $42 billion per year deficit eliminated, under Jean Chretien, Liberal PM.
- The Clarity Act that defines the legal framework of the separation of a province and that stared down the Quebec separatists once again is introduced by Stephane Dion, Intergovernmental Affairs minister, under Jean Chretien.
- An unprecedented (since Louis St. Laurent) five consecutive budget surpluses are recorded, due to the efforts of Paul Martin Jr. Finance Minister under Jean Chretien.
- $36 billion of the national debt is paid down, also by Jean Chretien.
- $100 billion in tax cuts are delivered, also by Jean Chretien.
- The new and revamped Youth Criminal Justice Act is introduced, also by Jean Chretien.
- The Ottawa Accord, the international treaty to ban land mines is signed by 158 countries largely due to the efforts of Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs under Jean Chretien. Axworthy narrowly misses the Nobel Peace Prize which is offered to the NGO member coalition of the same team.
- Canada refuses to join the invasion of Iraq by the US, also under Jean Chretien.
- Same sex marriage (Civil Marriage Act) is legalized in Canada, under Paul Martin Jr. Liberal PM.
- The Kelowna accord, a historic agreement between the Federal government and first nations is signed, by Paul Martin Jr.
- The Montreal round of the Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is concluded with the signing on of the US, this is achieved by Stephane Dion, then Minister of the Environment under Paul Martin Jr.

It has been really hard to select these achievements. But it would give you the perspective that I am talking about. Every single one of them is related ultimately to the public good. In fact, in the post WWII years, you can see that Canada tries very hard to project the concept of the public good across the world. This notion even applies to the NAFTA agreement. But more on that later.

As an interesting aside, and in keeping with the theme of the Red Tories, I would like to note that for a long period and well into the early twentieth century, the Conservative Party was actually called the Liberal-Conservative Party of Canada. This was done to accommodate liberal views, to distinguish it from stoic British conservatism, and to ensure that defectors from the Liberal party not only felt at home, but had an influence over policy. Perhaps in this lies another key of the Conservative Party uncharacteristically embracing the public good.

The Conservatives of course later merged with the farmer-based Progressive Party (the same one that gave us the first woman MP in 1921) to form the Progressive Conservatives. A name they kept until their complete absorption into the Canadian Alliance formerly known as the Reform Party founded by Preston Manning. The Conservatives of today have nothing to do with what has been achieved during the short history of the existence of our country. They are the ideological replica of what I have been arguing in Part I and in the beginning of this essay.

NAFTA or a road long travelled

Geography is destiny.

This is true for any country. The business mantra of location, location, location is doubly true for countries. The only difference being is that countries cannot just close shop and walk away. You have to make the best of what you have.

As J.R. Saul would argue, we Canadians seem to have made quite good out of our sort. For such a young nation, the above list is more than impressive. We have the world’s most decentralized country that is literally stretched to the maximum with its internal tensions and yet, we are still doing relatively well. But for how long still?

Throughout our history, our governments have rightfully realized that the country is about an East-West axis at its Southern population strip and about a North-South axis internally. Meaning of course that the geographic tensions that develop internally are really about these two realities. How to unite the Southern strip across large distances and great contrast, while preventing an implosion and takeover by the US. And how to extend sovereignty to the far North that is largely empty and yet is also what defines our country, both in terms of economic potential and from the point of view of our identity. Almost all the efforts have been to extend the public good across these two axes. By using technology (transportation, and telecommunications), through institutions (CBC, the federal government, the RCMP) and through services and state assistance programs. The idea being that this tying together of the disparate landscapes will create a society of mutual support.

This cannot and could not have been done with a purely conservative ideology. Regardless of what you call the party in power. This can only be done by implementing the public good.

That is why, as J.R. Saul points out once again, every single government since confederation, has either governed from the center left of the political spectrum, or has been elected on a policy that was proposed from the left of the governing party. This included all the Conservative governments (except the one elected in 1988). As an example, the creation of the CBC was a very left-oriented proposition (under R.B. Bennett). Diefenbaker was actually elected on a platform that promised to outspend Louis St. Laurent’s Liberals (which in of itself is difficult to imagine, as his predecessor St. Laurent’s government was one of the biggest spenders – and without a deficit – in Canadian history). Saul further elaborates that if the above would not be possible, then the electorate put in power minority governments where the balance of power has been held by the left-wing parties such as the NDP, thus giving those governments the challenge to manage such a situation.

The question is again why? The reason is because ultimately, the electorate as well understood that our country is also built on the notion of the public good.

The “Free Trade” election of 1988 that put in place the 2nd government of Brian Mulroney came to redefine the concept of our continental geographical reality. At the bottom line, it proposed that our concept of ourselves and hence our government is not defined by the two axes that I outlined, but rather by a much larger North-South axis that carried goods and services across the continent. It suggested that our future prosperity does not lie within the enhancement of the public good within our country but rather it lies in a mercantilist approach of a commercial relationship with the world’s economic and military superpower.

This proposition by the way was nothing new, several free trade proponents had been soundly defeated throughout our history. Including the very Liberal Wilfrid Laurier. Mulroney himself came to lead the Conservatives as an anti-free trader by defeating John Crosbie, the ardent supporter of free trade with the US.

As someone who has actually studied the Free Trade Agreement (I still have a copy in a DOS-based Wordperfect file, as well as the printed version in several binders), I can say that the real achievement of the negotiations was not the notion of enhancement of trade with the US. The real achievement for Canadians was the putting in place of dispute resolution mechanisms that would be binding and that would level the playing field against aggressive protectionist legislation by US law makers. At least that was the principle.

In exchange though, we had to give up privileged access to our resources, redefine our view of ourselves and to wage an intellectual war whether our culture and hence the flowing notion of our identity was really just another part of what was collectively defined as the entertainment industry, and as such subject to NAFTA rules or not. In other words, the definition of our existence and relationship with ourselves as citizens in a society and collectivity was being turned into a purely economic one. Conservatism was back to its true ideological roots.

The end result of NAFTA is still the subject of much debate by economists. But some results are clear and undisputed.

· Close to 80% of our international trade is dependent on a single country, the USA. From a business perspective, this would be the equivalent of having one customer. From an investor’s point of view, it would be the equivalent of having shares not in a portfolio but of only one company. Basically no diversification and complete economic vulnerability to the point of almost being considered an economic hostage. Incidentally, this is a behaviour that is practiced by WalMart, the world’s largest company, against its suppliers, who are completely dependent on and hostage to its pricing practices. Closer to home, just ask the investors who only held Nortel Networks shares.
· In the current context of global economic meltdown, the bankruptcy of our single large customer is even more ominous and would probably reverse any economic benefit that might have accrued over the past twenty years. The economists will not have to debate much longer. While individuals might have been beneficiaries; at the macro level, our country will become a net loser.
· The dispute resolution mechanism, while a great achievement for our negotiators (and an enhancer of the public good) proved to be unenforceable. For the simple reason that our partner just refused to abide by the agreement. Canada has repeatedly and solidly won almost every single dispute on the major economic issue of softwood lumber. The bigger irony is that the ideological right of a Harper government actually cites it as an achievement that they had to negotiate a side deal, essentially walking away from hundreds of millions of dollars of illegally imposed tariffs and setting a major precedence suggesting that bullying works in international trade deals which are not worth the paper they are written on. For all intents and purposes, the dispute resolution mechanism is now a just a “paper tiger”.

So now, twenty years later, we seem to be saddled with liabilities and have almost nothing to show for this major blunder.

The Denial of the Public Good and How to Achieve It

As Canadians, this fundamental denial of the public good is at our own expense as a people.

That is why the Conservatives of today (and Brian Mulroney of 1988) have a serious ideological dilemma. They carry the name of a party that has a long tradition of enhancing the public good; yet their policy agenda is a very strong replica of the initial points I made at the beginning of this essay. They can either choose to be dishonest with themselves or the electorate. They have chosen the latter.

The general electorate though is not easily duped. Hence the Conservative need to build alliances (pun intended) with the most unlikely group; Quebec separatism. That was true then with Brian Mulroney who gave us Lucien Bouchard, The Bloc Quebecois and the ensuing 1995 referendum which almost destroyed our country. It is true now with Stephen Harper who acknowledged a “Quebec nation” (leaving millions of francophones who have lived for centuries outside Quebec and have essentially built this country with a denial of their own identity).

In April 2008, in a scathing article titled One Canada or 10 Canadas? Sinclair Stevens, former minister in the cabinets of Jo Clark and Brian Mulroney outlines the evolution of the Harper policy agenda.

He points out how when referring to "Quebec's historical demands," Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn suggested the following:

"The recognition of the Quebec nation within Canada allows us to think that we can put some meat around it, and that a majority government is more able to do a number of things, while being respectful of all of the provinces," Blackburn said in an interview. On the topic of constitutional change, he added: "When you're a minority, you never know what can happen, so it's not obvious to do that type of thing in the actual context."

Stevens goes further and shows a clear step-by-step progression of the same idea, the implementation of an ideological right policy as follows:

· How on Oct. 15, 1995, Reform party leader Preston Manning and unity critic Stephen Harper presented Reform's "New Confederation" proposal, a package of 20 measures to modernize and decentralize Canada.
· "We propose measures which will assert the autonomy of all provinces and the power of the people well into the future," Harper said.
· Each of the 20 changes could be accomplished without comprehensive federal-provincial negotiations of the sort that led to the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. Reform's proposals simply required a federal government willing to act. "Canadians want change, not more constitutional wrangling," Harper said.
· Earlier, speaking to a meeting of the National Citizens Coalition on May 24, 1994, Harper said: "Whether Canada ends up with one national government, or two governments or 10 governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangements of any future country may be."
· In 1997, Harper and his confidant Tom Flanagan, writing in their Next City magazine, suggested that coalition-building was the only practical way for the right to seize national power. They said an alliance with the Bloc Québécois "would not be out of place. The Bloc are nationalist for much the same reason Albertans are populists – they care about their local identity ... and they see the federal government as a threat to their way of life."
· In 2001, Harper proposed "a firewall around Alberta."
· In October 2004, Harper made his "Belgian waffle" speech in Quebec City, suggesting that Canada should become a North American version of Belgium, which has autonomous regions. He was sympathetic to this "national autonomy" concept because "Québécois never wanted to be an overwhelmed province in a centralized Canada." Subsequent to Harper's speech, the Belgians had an election that left them so divided they were unable to form a government for more than eight months.
· With little mainstream news comment, Harper – the day after his keynote speech at the Conservative policy convention in Montreal in March 2005– slipped a new section into the Conservative policy paper passed in Montreal. For the first time in Canadian history, a national political party embraced a provincial rights agenda. The section – Part D – binds the party "to ensure that the use of the federal spending power in provincial jurisdictions is limited, authorizes the provinces to use the opting out formula with full compensation if they want to opt out of a new or modified federal program, in areas of shared or exclusive jurisdiction. Consider reforming Canadian federalism, taking into account: (a) the need to consolidate Quebec's position within the Canadian federation; (b) the need to alleviate the alienation felt by the citizens of the West."

You can see the full article here

http://progressivecanadian.ca/english/navigation/news/agenda_april_25_08.html?gclid=CPiepa7Wl5YCFQHHGgodnQeH5w

I have highlighted the parts that actually demonstrate the consistency in thought. Frankly, one wants consistency in thought in political leaders. It just happens that I do not want these thoughts to govern my country.

Because it is not his to give away.

The fact that the majority of Quebecers have already twice rejected the separatist option does not seem to bother Harper the ideologue, bothers me very much.

The fact that we are already the world’s most decentralized country and any further decentralization could actually tear it apart, does not bother Harper the ideologue, bothers me very much.

The fact that Quebec already more than fully occupies all the room it can within a Canadian federation (with all of its full state structures such as control over immigration, a separate legal system, a separate taxation mechanism, a separate pension plan, even diplomatic representation abroad and at a tremendous cost of all of the above to Quebec taxpayers I might add) and that any further divorce from federal powers would actually send it into full statehood and destroy Canada does not bother Harper the ideologue, bothers me very much.

The fact that the denial of the public good, which defines Canada itself, and cannot be dismantled because it will mean the dismantling of Canada does not bother Harper the ideologue, bothers me very much.

He cannot help it though. He is an ideologue. Ideology is not to be confused with ideas. The latter are the outcome of human creativity. The former leads to propaganda. In its extreme form, it builds dictatorships. Communism and Fascism always start with propaganda to win sympathy. In recent history, just go back and see how Iraq was invaded. Healthy public discourse, the foundation of democracy is dismissed as inefficient and unnecessary.

Do I believe that Stephan Harper wants to poison Canadian with the listeriosis bacteria or kill them with nuclear reactor accidents? Of course not.

However, I know for a fact that he wants less government. He believes that less government is better. He believes that less regulation is better. He believes that governments should not intervene in the economy or any sector for that matter. He genuinely believes that it is better for our country as a whole and if most Canadians share his views, that is what he will set out to do.

On the way to get there though, a true and open discourse must be held with the citizens. But that has not been the road chosen. The road chosen is advertising and the reduction of serious and complex matters into single and meaningless words like “Leadership”, “the prudent choice”, “steady as she goes”. In a sense, the image evoked wants to dumb down the electorate and frankly is quite offensive.

A real Conservative agenda, by the definition of conservatism itself, will want to do less inspection and policing. Can you say Walkerton? If your memory is short, it was the poisoning of drinking water by E Coli bacteria, in small Ontario municipalities in 2000 which led to several deaths. Because the Conservative provincial government of Mike Harris had decided that municipal water supplies need not be inspected by higher provincial authorities and should “police themselves”. Can you draw parallels between the listeriosis outbreak that has now killed over twenty people and that one?

You do not have to believe the counter propaganda that Stephen Harper is the Canadian version of a George W. Bush. But the fact is that a) Harper did urge Canada to invade Iraq and b) just this year the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration of the US) grounded the fleet of American Airlines stranding thousands of passengers. United Airlines entire fleet of Boeing 777s was grounded immediately afterwards. Why is this relevant? Because it so happens that the Republicans implemented severely reduced regulation and airlines became responsible for “self-policing and self-inspection”. The FAA no longer sent inspectors in the field. Most of them were fired and the ones who were left became desk clerks who read the “reports” sent in by the airlines. Until a couple of whistle-blowers noticed some discrepancies and missing data in the reports suggesting fraud and blatant disregard for passenger safety. They reported it several times to their management but were dismissed. So they went to the media and mayhem followed.

You want more proof? Please dig deeper into the firing of the head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Linda Keen. Just Google the story.

The Current Economic Crisis

It is rather ironic and blatantly disingenuous that the Conservative party is campaigning on being a better steward for the economy. There is actually ZERO track record of that being true in Canadian history. More duping of the electorate.

But furthermore, as the remarkable British commentator and political scientist John Gray points out, the current fall of the global economy is the equivalent of the shattering of the Berlin Wall and the destruction of Communism; on the other side of the spectrum of course. See his article in The Observer here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/28/usforeignpolicy.useconomicgrowth

With the collapse of the fully free markets and the integrated global financial system, things we have been repeatedly told by Conservative ideologues that are ultimate tools not only of prosperity but also the key to democracy itself (Question: how many times have you heard the neo-conservatives mention the words freedom, democracy and free-market economy in the same phrase? Answer: all the time), we find ourselves as a country to have been proven right.

That the public good does matter.

In fact, it is the only thing that matters and might be our sole option not only as a country, but also as a planet.

And that is why I cannot be a Conservative.

Watch for Part III of this series. Why I Cannot Be a Conservative, The Armenian Perspective.

Montreal, October 12, 2008
© Viken L. Attarian

Why I Cannot Be a Conservative/ Part I: The Humanist Perspective

2008-10-10T06:38:00.000-07:00

Quick, take on this challenge!

Name the greatest writer of the past two centuries who has been of a declared right-wing or conservative ideology. If you can, then name five great ones.

Do the same for the greatest intellectuals or philosophers of the past two centuries.

Now try the same for composers, painters, sculptors, architects.

How about great social reformers?

Similarly, how about the great scientists, or the great filmmakers and actors?

How many names have you got in total one, two, five or ten? You would be really hard pressed to find more than a handful in each category, even when you spend a lot of time researching and Google-ing.

Let me help you out, but before I do, here are some caveats.

a) The list is based on truly great contributions to the human cultural and intellectual heritage.
b) Pop stars and most figures of popular culture are not included. Unless they have left a real lasting legacy (which is usually more the exception than the rule).
c) Economists, financiers and business leaders are not included. It is doubtful that their legacy is of a really lasting nature. After all, no one can name the richest man during the Golden Age of Greek philosophy, or the top businessman of the Renaissance.
d) Political leaders and monarchs are excluded, because a political conviction and position is part of their raison-d’être. We are only interested in these individuals in as much as their political position is a secondary variable, not a primary one.
e) It is important to look at the past two centuries, because the political conceptualization of the right vs. left is shaped throughout that period. One would be very hard-pressed to define the ideology of Socrates or Shakespeare within those relatively modern constructs. Also, the political or ideological positions must be attributable either through the actions of the named individuals or their public statements.
f) Any racially motivated declaration or public espousing of discrimination is deemed to be automatically those of a right-winger. Also, criticizing Israel does not make one an anti-Semite and hence a right-winger, whereas openly expressing disdain and hatred for Jews does. The former is a democratic right, the latter is hate propaganda.

So, here is the list:

Great writers:

Unequivocal right-wingers:

1. Winston Churchill - (Nobel winner for literature - 1953). He of course needs no introduction, but it is a little known fact that he was however a member of the Liberal Party of Britain from 1904 to 1924.
2. Ezra Pound - An American genius of an innovator in modern English poetry and literary criticism. He lived in Italy, was a notorious supporter of Mussolini’s fascists and a self-declared anti-Semite in his radio broadcasts supporting the Axis powers during WWII.
3. Alexander Solzhenitsyn - (Russian author, Nobel winner for literature – 1970). Suffered tremendously in Soviet prison camps. A Russian ultra-nationalist who had very public anti-Semitic positions and publicly called for the continued bombing and the destruction of Vietnam to “save” them from Communism.
4. Knut Hamsun - (Norwegian author and Nobel winner for literature - 1920). Notorious supporter of Norwegian Nazi collaborators as well as an outright Hitler admirer, who even wrote a glorifying obituary of Hitler when he learnt of the latter’s death.
5. Yukio Mishima – Arguably, one of the greatest Japanese writers and intellectuals of the post WWII era. He was also a filmmaker and militarist who organized his own right-wing militia that attempted a military coup in 1970. When it failed, Mishima committed suicide through ritual seppuku (hara-kiri).
6. André Malraux - (French author, and Minister of Culture 1959-1969). Fought Franco’s right-wing Falangist militia during the Spanish Civil War, he was a member of the French leftist coalition of the Front Populaire, as well as of the French Resistance. After WWII, he became a supporter of De Gaulle and a very influential intellectual and minister in France.

Potential right-wingers:

7. T.S. Eliot - (Nobel winner for literature – 1948). Accused of anti-Semitism. He might have been innocent of it ideologically, but he certainly has expressed some slight (veiled) anti-Semitism in his literary works.
8. C.S. Lewis - (author of the Chronicles of Narnia). A born again Christian at the age of 33, his political views cannot be classified as right-wing, but his views about Christian morality and faith would probably place him closer to the right side of the political spectrum. It would of course be a stretch, since he has clearly declared himself for a strong democratic tradition, separation of church and state and a despiser of theocracies.
9. Jorge Luis Borges - One of the greatest of all Latin American writers (and my personal favorite on this list) with an incredible imagination and an extremely creative sense of the aesthetics of language. Borges was a staunch anti-Peronist (Peron had a particular disdain for Borges and demoted him to a meat inspector’s job); although that alone would not make him a right-wing thinker, he was sympathetic towards the military dictators that governed Argentina in the 1970s, perhaps because they were anti-Peronists themselves.

Great intellectuals/philosophers: None !!!!!

Great Social Reformers: Doubly None !!!!!

Great Scientists:

1. Edward Teller - The principal scientist whose team invented the thermonuclear or hydrogen bomb. He was a member of Oppenheimer’s Manhattan Project (atomic bomb) team who later denounced Oppenheimer as unpatriotic and untrustworthy. He was opposed to the US-Soviet nuclear disarmament initiatives and treaties, and assisted in the setting up of the clandestine Israeli nuclear weapon program.
2. William Shockley – (Nobel prize in physics – 1956). The co-inventor of the transistor, originally of Bell Labs. He was a paranoid inventor who espoused racist views and was a proponent of eugenics and government control of populations via sterilization and the enhancement of intelligence with selective breeding.

Great Painters and sculptors:

1. Salvador Dali – As an artist, Dali needs no introduction. While in the early part of the 20th century he did move in left-wing intellectual circles and had close collaboration with many artists of the same group, he eventually became a supporter of and an apologist for Franco’s dictatorial right-wing Spanish regime.

Great Architects:

Potential right-wingers :

1. Antoni Gaudi – One of my all time favorite architects. He was a very devout Catholic and that would be enough to swing him over to a right-ideology classification. However, as a Spanish Catalan, he was also very nationalist and stood up to the Spanish dictatorial authorities in defense of Catalonian national interests such as the defense of Catalonian culture and language.

Great Composers:

1. Richard Wagner - A prolific, talented and innovative composer, Wagner was also a self-declared anti-Semite who wrote against what he called “Jewishness in Music” and attacked Jewish composers. He also wrote about the purity and superiority of the German race. It is no coincidence that his work was appropriated by the Nazis.

Great Filmmakers:

Potential right-wingers :

1. Elia Kazan – Winner of three Academy Awards, Kazan was a member of several left-wing and progressive movements in his youth, including the Communist party. During the McCarthy “Hollywood witch hunts” of the early 50s, Kazan denounced several of his former left-wing colleagues. He is listed here only because of that act. He however, never considered himself a conservative, but quite the opposite. Orson Welles, while condemning his act of denouncing said that he remained one of the greatest film directors.

Great Rock Stars:

1. Elvis Presley - He asked for an audience with President Richard Nixon and offered to help rid the US of hippies and the Black Panthers. He wanted to have an FBI mandate to clear the minds of youth from the “Communist and anti American propaganda of the Beatles”.
2. Eric Clapton – Supported Enoch Powell’s British ultra right-wing party (the Ulster Unionists) of Northern Ireland and, in a drunken stupor screamed that he wanted a “white and clean Britain”.

Great Actors:

1. Charlton Heston – This Academy Award winner also needs no introduction. My personal favorite roles he portrayed are those of Col. George Taylor in the original Planet of the Apes (1968), and Michelangelo in The Agony and the Esctasy (1965). It is a lesser known fact that prior to becoming a gun-shaking right-wing advocate of R. Reagan, George Bush Sr. and George W. Bush, Heston was actually once approached by the Democratic Party to run for office. In his younger days he opposed the Vietnam War, supported civil rights and even gun control. After the late seventies, he opposed affirmative action, became the president of the NRA and was caught on camera by Michael Moore with a blatant racist discourse.

That’s it. That’s the list. All glorious 3 pages of it, including my relatively detailed descriptions.

I suspect, that if you apply the criteria I am outlining, it would be really difficult to add any substantial number to this list and expand it significantly; you can see that even though I am a politically biased anti-conservative, I have decided to give the benefit of the doubt to some on the list and have “generously” classified them here.

The real question is why is this list so small? Why are so few advancements of the human intellectual achievement attributable to right-wingers and conservatives? The opposing list would literally be contained in a volume per category. They are not comparable neither in quantity and one could successfully argue that nor even in comparative quality.

I believe that the reason is intrinsic to conservatism. By definition, conservatives would like to preserve the status quo, or to reach an ideologically romantic state of the “good old days”. An illusory state which existed in the early Victorian period but for only wealthy upper class white male industrialists and financiers.

That state of existence however was far removed from the reality of most people of the planet at the time. Here is what that dream-like state includes:

a) A yearning for empires and “great military achievements and conquests”. It was the time of empires and colonization (the fact that cannons were used against spears and that it was hardly an equal contest seems to elude the advocates). The British, French, Russian and to a lesser extent German. The American one was forming. Empire building was of course at the expense of the people that are conquered.

b) It was also the time of uncontrolled, unregulated and unfettered industrial and capitalist expansion (very similar to our own times right now).

c) The only modern “democracies” were the French and American republics. The French one rapidly degenerated into a reign of terror and then to Napoleon’s personality cult, the American one was founded upon the toil of slaves.

d) Women have no rights. No legal abortion, no votes, no equal rights in the workplace. The workplace of course being that of servants or brothels and slightly later that of the grueling factories.

e) Workers have no rights. Neither do children. Most of the latter worked in mines and factories.

f) Most social mores are governed by a strict, puritan and strongly religious code of conduct. The religious hierarchy has unbelievable influence on the daily lives of all layers of society.

g) Science is tolerated, in as much as it allows the monetization of new discoveries and inventions. When it challenges religious doctrine, it is frowned upon, declared dangerous and censored.

h) Censorship in artistic expression is the rule, not the exception.

i) Non-whites do not exist as people.

j) Homosexuals are imprisoned.

In general, this is the conceptual framework of conservatism. This is the springboard from which their discourse is launched. Granted, it has changed much over time and is now cloaked under such guises as “traditional and family values”, “religious and ethical morality”, “the supremacy of the markets”, “deregulation and globalization of business”, ”support for our military” and so on.

In the end, if you really think hard about it, it is a question of power and a lament that power has been lost to all those who initially never had power over their own lives. Those who had to give away that power, as it had to be wrested from them with the blood of literally hundreds of millions of human beings, are definitely not content and want to conserve what they have or rather what they had, essentially to turn back the clocks of time.

The way to do that is by ultimately imprisoning ideas, creativity, human rights, artistic expression, and thoughts for social justice etc. etc. Reread human history after the Renaissance with this critical view and you will see it in a totally different light.

The human intellect only thrives upon redefining the boundaries of thought. By definition, creativity will want to reframe debates about art, culture, history, science, societal development, politics, and human rights. In a word, everything. There are no sacred cows for the human mind. There will always be someone who will want to challenge the status quo.

The human intellect and creative spark constantly want to make us see ourselves in a new light. We cannot help it. We have been genetically conditioned throughout millions of years of evolution to be problem solvers in order to survive. Creativity is the ultimate tool allowing for the adaptability of our species.

Conservatives have no interest in that. They want to conserve things the way they are, or rather the way they were. Oops, I forgot. Real conservatives do not believe in evolution.

I wish they spent their efforts trying to conserve the planet.

Watch for Part II of this series. Why I Cannot Be a Conservative, The Canadian Perspective.

Montreal, October 10, 2008
© Viken L. Attarian

"Collapse" and how it relates to things Armenian

2008-04-26T20:50:00.000-07:00

One of my personal influences is Jared Diamond. After reading his Pulitzer Prize-winning Guns, Germs and Steel (1998), many things that were a mere suspicion became very clear, as if when a misty and blurry image suddenly comes into very sharp focus. The memory of that moment never leaves you and, even when you willingly try to, you can no longer claim that you do not know. It keeps drawing you back into its referenial frames and reminds you that you cannot stray away from its conclusions.

In fact, that book was a source of inspiration for me to deliver a lecture a few years ago, on the invitation of the Canadian Armenian Women's Association on March 8th, the International Women's Day. The topic was, "History of the status of women over the past 10,000 years, or How we got where we are today". The lecture lasted about 2 hours.

As a result, I might actually be the record holder (at least among Armenians) of covering such a long period of time in such a relatively short lecture. It would put me at about 5000 years per hour or at an "astonishing" 1.9 years per second. I had a lot of fun researching and delivering it.

In 2005, Diamond published another book called Collapse, How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. By all indications, it is destined to become another landmark book. Collapse describes the stories of several historical societies that collapsed because of certain things they did or did not do. Examples of such societies, which lasted several centuries and even millenia before they destroyed themselves, include Easter Island, the Maya and the first Norse settlement of Greenland. Diamond also analyzes the reasons for such behaviour by those societies and, once again, comes up with masterful conclusions as to the causes.

In the same year of publication, Diamond gave a series of lectures about his new book. The most famous of them occured upon the invitation of the Long-Now Foundation, an institution dedicated to foster and encourage the proliferation of very long-term thinking (on the millenial scale). Give their web site a visit, you might learn a thing or two. Here they are

http://www.longnow.org/

You can listen to Jared Diamond giving his famous talk here.

Diamond's book is ultimately about environmental degradation and how, despite the glaring evidence, societies have in the past continued (and sometimes still do so today) to destroy their surroundings and themselves in the process.

Here are some of the main reasons, Diamond concludes, that cause societies to refuse to acknowledge that they have embarked on a track of self-destruction. He is, of course, much more articulate and gives numerous examples of each case.

1. Failure to anticipate the upcoming disaster, sometimes because nothing in their past experience would suggest the resulting outcome, or because that past experience is forgotten, or because they refuse to learn from that past experience fuelled by their use of false "analogies".

2. Failure to perceive that the problem has actually arrived, sometimes because the problem is imperceptible, or because of the remoteness of the decision makers from the actual place of occurence of the problem.

3. The slowly accruing trend of the problem that creates the concept of "creeping normalcy", in other words, because of the long-lasting trend, the incremental differences in degradation become accepted by that society until a point of no return is reached.

4. The "rational/utilitarian" behaviour of some of the members of that society, whose interest is at a conflict with the interest of the society as a whole. This argument follows the "logic" (or lack thereof) of someone who decides, for example, to overfish or overharvest, because he reasons that if he doesn't, then someone else will. As more and more members of that society behave that way, the society depletes the resources it relies on and essentially dies off. Such decline is rapidly accelerated especially if it is the governing elite that engages in such predatory practices, at the expense of the common folk.

5. "Irrational behaviour" attached to values, mainly religious ones, resulting in persistence in error. For example, by insisting on not practicing birth control by many societies today, or by the religious fervour of building monumental statues on Easter Island.

6. Dislike of the general public of those who are bearers of bad news, and their ensuing dismissing of the warnings as exaggerated. This results mostly from a short-term focus of all the levels of a society and the inability of the governing elites to focus on the longer term issues that would extend beyond a generation.

7. "Crowd psychology" or "groupthink", better known as the herd mentality, where a smaller group of people who think alike, will act in a mutually reinforcing way, and as they steer the society in the wrong direction, they are followed by the rest. This leads to a complete disappearance of critical thinking and the eventual destruction of that society.

8. Psychological denial, because of suppressed painful memories that prevent a society from taking the right decisions and basically paralyze it. The same way that such denials are used to explain individual behaviour, they would apply to societies that have suffered some kind of historical trauma or terror, therefore refusing to confront a massive threat and essentially "shutting down" their collective defense mechanism.

As you will hear in the lecture linked above, Diamond says that when he presented the case of the collapse of the Easter Island society to his students, they posed a very interesting question. Since the collapse of that society was ultimately driven by the destruction of all the trees on the island (which they needed for wood to build sleds to carry their megastatues to their places of worship, and to build canoes to go fishing in the ocean), the question that his students posed is as follows:

"What did the person who chopped down the last tree on the island say, as he was chopping it down?". They also proposed some answers as follows:

a) "Never fear, technology will solve all our problems by finding a substitute for wood !!!".

b) "This is my private property. This tree is mine. Private property rights are to be respected and I can do with them whatever I please. Keep the big government and the chiefs off my back !!!".

c) "The fears of you environmentalists are exaggerated. You don't know what is going on in some other part of the island. Perhaps there are still trees out there. A ban on logging would be premature. We need more research".

d) "Never fear ! Have faith ! God will somehow provide for us".

Of course, history tells us that after a civilization that likely lasted over a thousand years, the last tree on Easter Island was cut down in the 1680s. The islanders could no longer build the sleds to carry the giant statues of worship. Soil erosion and deforestation killed off all sources of food on the island. They could no longer build canoes to go out fishing. So they turned on each other for sources of protein. They descended into civil warfare and cannibalism. When Europeans discovered them about a century later, there were only a few hundred islanders left who had lost the ability to read and write in their uniquely developed language, and had almost reverted to stone age tools. Most of them died as a result of the diseases imported by the Europeans or were enslaved by the newcomers.

Now why is all this relevant to Armenians?

Let me count the ways.

Firstly, every single one of the reasons that these societies collapsed seems to be endemic among Armenians, both in Armenia but, also mainly, in the Diaspora.

Secondly, the Easter Island metaphor is very much applicable and in fact quite analogous with our situation as a people.

If we look at our resources that will be required to get to through these difficult times, then they would be financial capital, intellectual capital and arguably the State of Armenia itself. Related resources and concepts would be the Armenian identity (for, in general, one will firstly need to identify with being Armenian in order to feel compelled to act for improving our sort), and ultimately the demographic vigor and dymamism of the Diasporan communities and its institutions.

These resources are finite and under tremendous stress.

Here is a one-to-one mapping of the above reasons for collapse to our situation:

1. Failure to anticipate the upcoming disaster, well, this would be rather obvious. In the past century, we collectively failed to anticipate the Genocide, the Treaty of Lausanne, the assimilation of the Diaspora. I single these three calamities out because we are today living and literally dying as a nation because of the consequences of these three events.

2. Failure to perceive that the problem has actually arrived, the real problem, after the Yeghern, has always been the gradual disappearance of the Diaspora and the increasing distance between itself and its collective memory of a homeland. Demographic and societal evolutions have statistical and mathematical rules by which they evolve. The notion of a minimal critical population mass in a community is actually a well-established construct in the social sciences. We have ignored these important intellectual advances to our own peril, and gradual assimilation has blurred the boundaries of what can or can no longer be saved. Large migrational trends away from the geographical proximity of a historical homeland have accelerated the assimilatory trends and the further dispersions of the Diasporan communities. For the first time ever, we have a new generation that has not even grown up knowing and interacting with Genocide survivors. That experience is now therefore relegated to a memory which, at best, is written in a language which is no longer read, or it is largely a memory of oral history, therefore subject to distortion. As a result, the survivability of such communities beyond a single generation is highly questionable.

3. The slowly accruing trend of the problem that creates the concept of "creeping normalcy", a glaring example of this one in our communities is the current almost "accepted gospel" that the Armenian language is not relevant for the modern conceptualization of an Armenian identity, or that at least it is not as relevant as it used to be. Parents of children attending Armenian schools complain about the "high" number of hours alloted to Armenian topics and the amount of homework given in Armenian. Organizational leaders publicly argue that the role of language in determining identity belongs to the past and that we must embrace the definition of the new Armenian for whom the learning of the Armenian language is equivalent to learning any foreign language, like Mandarin or Spanish. The fact that this position goes against not only common sense, but in fact against every single research conclusion done on the topic of language and identity for the past two hundred years does not seem to bother anyone. Furthermore, there is a conspicuous absence of any organized official or grassroots body in the Diaspora or even in Armenia to defend the Armenian language, in any of its forms (Eastern or Western) against serious encroachments and outright assault from all sides. Lack of knowledge of Armenian does not seem to be a deterrent for advancement in any Armenian insitution (even in Armenia), mastery of the language does not seem to be a requirement even for journalists in Armenia, whose media is literally peppered with gross grammatical and orthographic violations. For example, as recently as a few weeks ago, one of the web sites of a major and respectable journalistic outlet (in Armenian) from Armenia had the label on its Search Function button spelt glaringly ՓՆՏՐԵԼ (Pronounced Pndrel). After I pointed out to them 3 times, over a period of three months, that this is a major error in any branch of the Armenian, the Western, the Eastern and even in the bastardized Apeghian orthography and should be ՓՆՏՌԵԼ , i.e. with the trilled letter "r" (Pronounced Pndrrel = to search for). I am still to be honoured by even an acknowledgement of receipt of my emails. There is a massive international movement to protect and even to revive thousands of languages that are part of the human heritage and shape the identity of the people who speak them. In fact, this is deemed so vital to identity and heritage that the UN General Assembly declared 2008 to be the International Year of Languages and mandated the UNESCO to lead the initiatives worldwide to preserve all languages. Visit their website and you will see there calls for papers, projects, conferences, research material, funding opportunities. The Armenian contribution? How to preserve the cultural heritage of the Duduk. Important, but hardly relevant.

4. The "rational/utilitarian" behaviour of some of the members of that society, whose interest is at a conflict with the interest of the society as a whole. Now, examples of this would really be countless, but certainly, every single story of embezzlement, enticement to fraud in our community organizations would fall under this one. How about the stifling of dissent in our organizations? The hiring of incompetent teachers and administrators in our scools? How about our political parties pursuing a strictly self serving agenda? Do we need to enumerate the incidents of brotherly hate? The murders of Armenians who belonged to other factions by fellow Armenians? How about the assasination of the former Prime Minister in the Armenian Parliament? The murder of an archbishop on the altar in New York? The betrayals to the Ottomans, the Stalinists, and even the collaboration with the Nazis of our modern "heroes"? Every single one of these instances is actually an exercise in "utilitarian" behaviour by the perpetrators. The end result? Erosion of collective goodwill, institutional breakdown, decline of standards of social behaviour, disappearance of true altruism, and a growing mentality that the Diaspora is not reformable, and hence the disappearance of vitality and youth involvement is virtually guaranteed. Members of an educated, highly mobile, ambitious young generation of Armenian descent see no reason to invest of themselves in their communities.

5. "Irrational behaviour" attached to values, mainly religious ones, resulting in persistence in error. This one is certainly prevalent across the board. Ask any Armenian, in the Diaspora or in Armenia to name five top priorities for the nation, and I can guarantee you that building more churches would not be one of them. In Armenia, the issues would be centered around healthcare, jobs, decent living standards, environmental degradation, democracy, corruption, crime rate, outmigration from the villages into Yerevan, emigration from the country etc. In the Diaspora, the issues would be centered around survival of the Armenian language, the lack of youth involvement in traditional organizations, the lack of quality Armenian schools and the qualified staff for them, Genocide recognition, survival of the community as a whole, intermarriage with non-Armenians, migration demographics and integration issues among several communities of differing geographical backgrounds (e.g. Egyptian-Armenians with Iranian Armenians), etc. The solutions to many if not all of these problems hardly ever would include the building of churches, especially in communities and places that have an overabundance of them, like Armenia. While a church has its place and role in the Armenian psyche, it cannot be the all curing panacea. No truly critical thinking would come up with such an approach. The question then is, why are enormous resources literally wasted to build more and more churches? Why can't we renovate the existing historical ones in Armenia and revive them instead? And in the Diaspora, why cannot we dedicate our resources to building museums, better schools, training our teachers, building art institutions, concert halls, research labs, university scholarship funds for all Armenians, publishing books, creating literary and artistic prizes, building clinics, old age homes? Sure, we might be doing all or some of that, but if we compare the level of investments, I suspect that over 90% of it go into churches or related religiously affiliated establishments which become the only way to channel any other community public activity, essentially lulling us to believe that there is no other way to do things. We can see that all across the Diasporan communities in the Western world. The wealthiest and most properous of the Diasporas which is in US, after at least a century of highly affluent existence, does not have a single Armenian Art Center or a Concert Hall. If the Italian community in Montreal can initiate and complete the DaVinci Cultural facility which is unique in the city and attracts world class performances and events, why can't Armenians have one, and they focus instead on building church number 8 in a community of 35,000 and actually see nothing wrong with this? Why is it that there are special educational consultants that work for the secular institutions built by the Jewish community such as Jewish Family Services, (not attached to any synagogue by the way), who provide expert services not only to the Jewish community but to all educational institutions in Canada, and Armenians insist on attaching any social service programs they might have, if at all, to their religious institutions?

6. Dislike of the general public of those who are bearers of bad news, and their ensuing dismissing of the warnings as exaggerated. The most persistent example of this is the rapid disappearance and quasi elimination of the Armenian intellectual in the Diaspora (see my lecture "The Vanishing Breed of the Armenian Intellectual : Canaries in a Mineshaft", at the Columbia University conference The Diaspora and its Discontents to be posted soon on this blog). The educational institutions nurturing those intellectuals are all but gone or have been radically reduced in their instructional stature and capacity (The Melkonian Educational Institution in Cyprus, Mourad Raphaelian of the Mekhitarist Order in Venice, Hovaguimian-Manouguian of the AGBU in Beirut, Djemaran of Hamazkaine in Beirut) the only exception still being Getronagan in Istanbul. Arguably the two greatest writer/intellectuals of the Diaspora and even Armenia were Shahan Shahnour in Western Armenian and Gostan Zarian in Eastern Armenian. Both of whom were reviled and attacked at all levels both by individual, institutional and even state structures. Yet both produced pieces that diagnose the destiny of our people with remarkably clear foresight. The intellectuals of today, none of whom is at the level of these two, are at best ignored, and at worst, still reviled publicly and privately. This behaviour, while not unique to Armenians, is particularly detrimental for us as a people, because we lack any other mechanism of checks and balances. Destroying our own intellectual ability is literally cutting off our potential to renew ourselves and destroying our early warning system. Tsunamis, earthquakes and other extreme natural phenomena do a lot more damage when they are not predicted.

7. "Crowd psychology" or "groupthink", better known as the herd mentality. Think about it, when was the last time that any convential wisdom in any community was challenged with a true public critical debate? Things like "There is no HIV crisis among Armenians in our community" (no one knows how many Armenians have died of AIDS or are HIV positive), "Armenian youth are not involved in gangs" (There are 15,000 Armenians in California jails), "There is no bullying in Armenian schools" (deny, deny, deny), "Wife beating is only a very rare phenomenon among Armenians" (ask Armenian psychiatrists to give you the real story), "Our only saviour throughout history has been our church, therefore they alone can bring us through these difficult times once again" (we now have an independent country, and it is the Ottoman Sultans that have taught us that our leaders are our religious leaders), "There is no scandalous behaviour among our clergy" (look closely, really closely, the evidence is all around you, or you can play the Name That Khatchakogh game), "There is no potential for fraud in our institutions" (has anyone ever actually had the books audited by any of the big five firms?), "All our resources must be focused on Armenia" (and deplete the Diaspora for good in a few years?), "Our history is proof that we can survive the worst" (It is yet to be proven that we have survived the Genocide), "Gay Armenian rights? What gay Armenians?" (no comment), "There is no physical and sexual abuse of Armenian children in Armenian families" (check with your own families and those of your neighbours or your neighbours' neighbours), "Our school is the best, and parents love sending their children to our school" (so why is enrollment declining? Do we have year to year comparisons? Do we have market research that highlights what parents want or do not want?), "Armenians are not racists" (really?), "All Turks are murderers, it is in their genes" (so all the Turks who have bravely challenged the denials of their country and continue to do so are murderers too), "There are no cowards among Armenians, all our historical figures are heroes" (right, so the traitors in our history should not be analyzed), "People in our community do not appreciate culture and arts, they prefer to have parties, dances and eat Armenian food, so that is why we give them what they want, at least they are getting together (bring on the kebab singers)."

8. Psychological denial, because of suppressed painful memories that prevent a society from taking the right decisions and basically paralyze it. Two words Medz Yeghern - Մեծ Եղեռն.

In the final analysis, how many times have you heard, "Do not worry, God will build this church for his glory" (so why are we asking then the community to pay for it blindly?), "The community has the financial resources, so why shouldn't they support this project" (let's see, maybe because the project does not make neither financial nor strategic sense?), "We are a victorious nation, all our enemies over the millenia have disappeared yet we are still here" (so why worry about identity, saving the Diaspora or Armenia, if we are genetically predestined to survive?),"This church/school/community center is a private institution and we can do with it as we please" (so how come it was built with funds raised from the community? And wasn't it built for the community in the first place?).

For the record, one thing that Jared Diamond does not mention. It goes without saying that all those societies that collapsed, never ever had a clue that they were about to do so.

As already mentioned, the Easter Island civilization collapsed and subsequently degenerated into cannibalism. Armenians are notorious for despising each other to the extreme, perhaps that is proof that we have degenerated into our form of "cannibalism" and we may have already collapsed as a collective.

It would be worthwhile to contact Jared Diamond and ask him to write a book about Armenians. If he does, would that be further proof about us being an endangered species?

Language, Beauty and Memory Part IV (Name That Khatchakogh)

2008-04-13T06:01:00.000-07:00

Yeah, it is definitely a good idea to start that contest.

Here is the idea for the script of a television or web show.

"Coming right now to a web post in your home. An exciting new show the like of which you have never seen !!!!!!"

"NAME THAT KHATCHAKOGH".

"Using ancient techniques developed by Armenians centuries ago, the khatchakoghs have infiltrated modern society".

"On this unique show, and on every episode, contestants will be able to name them based on clues that we shall provide. Each question has a multiple choice answer. Remember, the right answer is right there in front of you. You're not blind, say what's on your mind !!!!

"And what's the prize you ask? The winner, will get an all-expenses-paid trip to the ancient region of Salmasd in Persia (Iran), the birthplace of the original khatchakoghs and spend a night at the cemetary in the principal village of Savra, their presumed den, to speak with the ghosts of the great founders of this movement".

"If the prize cannot be collected due to visa restrictions, we shall substitute it for a trip to Yerevan. Ghosts of the khatchakoghs will be substituted for anyone in power or anyone of the fifty oligarch families that own the country."

"If that prize cannot be collected, then a trip to almost any televangelist center would do".

"You don't understand the game? No problem, here are a few examples".

"Question 1.

"This khatchakogh collected a wealth of close to $100 million by publicly stating that God and Jesus speak with him all the time, in fact that Jesus has appeared to him in a gigantic 900-foot form. On one TV show, he stated that unless he collects the magical amount of $8 million God would call him back to heaven. He actually raised more than $9 million in that campaign. He founded a "university" and an affiliated "hospital" where "research" would be carried on cures for deadly terminal diseases, the cures to be provided by administering cocktails of medical therapies combined with prayers. His son Richard went on his show and claimed that he had witnessed his father raise a child from the dead. The "university" board then complained that millions in funds were being used to build homes for him and his son in Beverly Hills, and to purchase very exclusive golf club memberships.

"This khatchakogh is a) Bishop Desmond Tutu or b) Oral Roberts.

/audience cheers : You're not blind, say what's on your mind !!!! /

Question 2

"This khatchakogh was a tag-team with his wife. He was originally a waiter in a restaurant and his wife worked in a boutique. They dropped out of Bible college and became, you guessed it, travelling evangelists. They then got into TV and created the concept of the "TV Bible variety show". At some point their faithful were sending them $1 million a week. They also built the third largest theme park in the US, called Heritage USA."

"She was famous for always crying on TV and the running of her makeup mascara. He on the other hand, became famous for a sex scandal with Jessica Hahn, whom he tried to pay off with over $250,000. He was also later tried for fraud, embezzlement of millions from exclusive "memberships" that they sold to the believers. He was sentenced to 45 years imprisonment. He still owes $3 million to the IRS.

"This khatchakogh is a) Mahatma Ghandi b) Jim Bakker.

/audience cheers: You're not blind, say what's on your mind !!!! /

Question 3

"This next khatchakogh had the most popular Bible thumping program on TV. He is the first cousin of the great rock'n'roll pianist, Jerry Lee Lewis. At his peak, over 200 stations across the US would carry his show. His weakness was that he liked to spend the night in motels with prostitutes, got photographed doing so and was exposed. Yeah, pun is intended.

"He then went on the air and started crying and asked the Lord for forgiveness for his one-time sin. Four days later, the prostitute in question said that he was a regular customer. His ministry defrocked him and took away his license. Yet he insisted on going to the pulpit, claiming that if he doesn't preach millions will go to hell. Especially because they listen to Ozzy Osbourne music and should listen to gospel music he has composed. He has since started a new ministry.

"A few years later, when he was making a meagre salary of only $350,000 a year, he got caught by a traffic cop for having sex with a prostitute in a car. When his congregation asked him for repentance, he is supposed to have said "God told me that this is none of your business".

"He has now retrenched and started a new ministry of his own, broadcasting to over 50 countries. Trying to take on the world. He claims on his website that his biblical commentaries are actually ordained by God. A man of his calibre knows no limits.

"This khatchakogh is a) The Dalai Lama b) Jimmy Swaggart.

/audience cheers : You're not blind, say what's on your mind !!!! /

Question 4

"This khatchakogh appears as an enigma. He started his career as a philosophy teacher. Somewhere in there he achieved "enlightenment", then he called himself "the blessed saint". He preached worldly pleasures. So much so, that his houses of worship had a libertine party atmosphere of drinking, shouting, occasional violence and ensuing sex orgies. He predicted that before 2000 the world will either be destroyed by HIV/AIDS or by nuclear warfare, so they might as well enjoy a hedonistic life. His teachings included the forced laughter for three continuous hours every day for a week, and then followed by three hours continuous crying for every day for a week and to keep alternating. Supposedly to be in tune with the universe. He was only interested in rich followers. Especially those who could gift him Rolls Royces. At the time he fled the authorities in the US he owned 93, his presumed target was to have one for every day of the year.

"When he fled the US he was accused of several criminal activities, including profiting from prostitution, drug abuse, tax evasion, attempted murder, poisoning of public officials, illegal wiretapping and even attempted bioterror against a peaceful population using salmonella.

"This khatchakogh is a) Pope John Paul II b) Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh

/audience cheers : You're not blind, say what's on your mind !!!! /

Question 5

"This next khatchakogh is a "bishop" who manages a "herd" of women based on a special breeding program. He used to be a tag team with his Canadian counterpart in British Columbia but they have now gone off their separate ways with the same practices. He is on the FBI 10-most-wanted list in the US and has been a fugitive for some time. He is accused of polygamy, welfare fraud, incest, statutory rape, physical, sexual and psychological abuse. The "church" he leads is a fundamentalist offshoot of the Mormons and is known as the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, which also, by the way, owns all of the properties of its members who are not allowed to become property owners themselves.

"This khatchakogh is a) George Clooney b) Warren Jeffs.

/audience cheers : You're not blind, say what's on your mind !!!! /

Question 6

"This next khatchakogh has reached the pinnacle of "achievement". He calls himself "The second Christ", "The Savior", "The Returning Lord". He has been jailed for counterfeiting, has publicly supported Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal, has been convicted of conspiracy and income tax fraud in the US. He considers his dead son resurrected in a young man in Zimbabwe. He is the founder of the Washington Times on which he has spent between $1 and possibly up to $3 billion dollars (yes billion), which he uses to spread the "word of God". And since his followers consider him and his wife the "father and mother of Heaven and Earth", he is therefore God and his paper spreads his word. He was actually crowned as such by a US Senator and in his speech he called himself the Messiah and the Returning Lord who is the Saviour of humanity.

"His followers are asked to donate all that they have to his "church". He lives in a lavish 18 acre castle in New York and his family owns castles and mansions in South Korea, England, Scotland and Germany. His children receive an allowance of $50,000 a month and they also own an exclusive golf club in California.

"One of the major manufacturing businesses he owns in Korea is a company that produces M-16 assault rifles, anti-aircraft guns and various other weapons.

"This khatchakogh is a) Nicolas Sarkozy b) Sun Myung Moon

/audience cheers : You're not blind, say what's on your mind !!!! /

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the audience. The ways of the khatchakogh were actually invented by Armenians, yet you may wonder why we haven't given any examples of Armenian names. Well we have a treat for you this evening.

Questions 7 and 8

"One of the next khatchakoghs became a Patriarch in Jerusalem. A talented poet and writer, unfortunately he had a weakness for women and gambling and had at least two illegitimate children, but numerous affairs. He was accused of misappropriating over $10 million from the coffers of the St. James complex in Jerusalem, along with diverting precious historical jewelry to auction houses in Western Europe and replacing them with fake ones. He literally was a cross-thief. Such diversion included also priceless ancient manuscripts. All funds were pocketed personally.

"His accomplice of many years was also "prey" to many of the same vices and lifestyle. He was an archbishop who held the influential position of Chancellor and Manager of Properties of the Patriarchate, when his confrere was Patriarch. Talk about a greeeeeaaaaat arrangement. The fox in charge of the chicken coop. I hear the Saturday Night Live Church Lady saying "Isn't that conveeeenient?".

"In later years, these two "partners" became sworn enemies, and it is rumoured that the likely cause of this falling out was of the "female persuasion". After the death of the Patriarch, the archbishop settled in Armenia where he donated his personal ill-acquired wealth to the establishing of the Theological Faculty of the Yerevan State University, that has produced many graduates, hopefully not followers in his footsteps (although he was the dean of the faculty for 10 years).

"Can you name these khatchakoghs? Come on, what do we say?

/audience cheers : You're not blind, say what's on your mind !!!! /

"Tune in next month when we'll bring you another exciting lineup of contestants and we attempt to answer important questions on your mind like

- Are there any extraterrestrial khatchakoghs? What about Rael?

- Is it true that members of a famous disco band of the 60s and 70s who have given us such wonderful hits like Stayin' Alive, are actually Armenian khatchakoghs in perfect disguise?

- Was the mass-murderer Jim Jones a khatchakogh or just plain crazy? Or both?"

Now all I have to do is wait for a TV corporate executive to pick this one up.

Praise the Lord.

Language, Beauty and Memory Part III

2008-04-12T20:34:00.000-07:00

When I replied back to Edwina Charles congratulating her on her exquisite Chekhovian piece, I wrote to her that her short story reminded me of the main character in a wonderful adventure novel written by the great Armenian writer, Raffi. The work in question is the Memoirs of the Cross-Thief, or in Armenian, Խաչագողի Յիշատակարանը (Pronounced - Khatchakoghi Hishadagaranuh). This is the novel that I had read as a young teenager. It is 340 pages long.

The main character in that novel is Kavor Bedros, a ruthless criminal who has no morals and will do anything for illicit financial gain, including lying, cheating, murdering, raping, falsely befriending, disguising himself, betraying his kind and so on, he is the proverbial Cross-Thief. Once again, Armenian is unique among languages to have invented this word. Why? Because Armenians felt the need to express such a concept. We had (and still do have) many khatchakoghs.

Raffi was well known as a field researcher so all his contemporaneous novels are based on actual characters. Here is how Raffi describes them in his introduction to the novel (completed in 1870). These are excerpts, the translation is mine:

"The khatchakogh can change shape like the devil. He can appear as a completley different person than he truly is. No one can compete with them in such guiling disguise. You can never see a khatchakogh in his true self and form. In different places, and depending on different circumstances, he always conceals the truth and adapts.

"The khatchakogh contains within him all the habits of a human society. He climbs and descends all societal ladders with great ease and remarkable agility. He gets in and out of all social classes with a great ability to adapt. Among the upper classes, he is a proud, vapid and articulate nobleman, with all the gloss of such a person. Among the lower classes, he is a poor, kind and uneducated peasant, with all the simplicity of such character. With the educated, he can argue with conviction and all the moral fortitude of a humanist of lofty ideals. With the mullahs, he is a fanatic, dark minded like the night. One day he is evil, the next day good, but never himself.

"The khatchakogh is very elastic and malleable. He can lean any which way. He takes the form of any mould and many forms but never keeps a truly characteristic shape. He is a true chameleon.

"He knows how to cheat and lie, how to evade and become invisible. The all-seeing eye of the lawman cannot follow his footsteps. He disappears as a demon and reappears as an angel.

"The khatchakogh looks at the universe as his personal field to harvest. He is the ultimate parasite as he knows how to extract what he needs from the work of the community. He reaps but never sows. He does not produce and only consumes. He lives off the sweat of others. And to achieve his objective he uses all of his incomparable abilities. Where he cannot cheat his way, he is ready to shed blood.

"The khatchakogh has everything yet he owns nothing. He always tells his stories with a unique pride. He looks upon his cheatings, lies and sickly acts as deeds of great bravery.

"The khatchakogh is never satisfied with the amount of illicit wealth he accumulates. He is never satiated and his uncontrolled greed drives him to greater machinations and corruption of those around him. There have been khatchakoghs who, before the arrival of the British, had become Grand Viziers or Viceroys of whole provinces in India.

"Khatchakoghs are also known as "old woman stranglers" (Barav kheghtogh - Պառաւ խեղդող) and "donkey painters" (Esh nergogh - Էշ ներկող). As for the real origin of their name it is because many of them do not shy away from pretending to be priests and men of the cloth who thus would get into various positions of authority in a church or a monastery. Afterwards, they would steal all the golden crosses and ceremonial silverware and vanish. They also like to approach wealthy elderly widows, befriend them, gain their favor and when they become a household presence, they take the opportunity at night to strangle these unsuspecting women, steal all their wealth and then disappear. Finally, because they are very wily in their ways, they can steal someone's grey donkey, paint it black and then sell it back to the poor soul who would be totally impervious to their wickedness".

Raffi, of course, wrote his novels in the mid 19th century. He mentions that the original khatchakoghs were from very specific villages in the Salmasd region of Persia, specifically, the village of Savra. Many elderly khatchakoghs would teach their "trade" to their offspring. He then mentions that with the Russio-Persian wars, many khatchakoghs emigrated from the region and established themselves in Yerevan.

It seems to me that the khatchakoghs are doing very well these days. They are not extinct at all and are in fact thriving.

I think I'll start a contest called "Name That Khatchakogh!".

Language, Beauty and Memory part II

2008-04-12T19:43:00.000-07:00

The short story Pure Charm actually triggered many memories in me. The style was exquisite and "exquisite" is an adjective that I always associate with two notions. Firstly, the infinite possibilities within languages and the mastery of its writers, secondly, specifically with the Armenian language itself.

To demonstrate the subtle ways that language works, here is what I remembered reading many years ago and managed to track it down in cyberspace.

This anecdote is told about Professor William Thomson, a.k.a. Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), the great physicist and inventor of the Kelvin scale.

When he was a professor of natural philosophy at Glasgow University for some fifty years, William Thomson, unable to meet his class one day, posted a note on the door of his lecture room: "Professor Thomson," it said, "will not meet his classes today." As a joke, some of his mischievous students erased the "c," leaving a message reading: "Professor Thomson will not meet his lasses today." The following day when the pranksters assembled in anticipation of the effect of their joke, they were chagrined to find that the professor had outwitted them. The note was now found to read: "Professor Thomson will not meet his asses today." (from http://www.anecdotage.com/).

Isn't language marvelous that it allows itself to be played with like that?

Now Armenian is even better, because it has more letters (originally 36 and now 38) which allows an even more sophisticated word play. You just have a bigger palette of letters to choose from.

Take for example a common word known to many. The word Srpazan-Սրբազան, which is a title reserved for the upper echelons of the religious hierarchy, mainly bishops and archbishops. and it literally means "adorned with holiness". And rightfully so, because they are supposed to act in a holy fashion and within the contextual framework of an exemplary moral and ethical behaviour.

Armenian has a letter called Tsoh, and here it is, "ց", in the printed form it looks like the letter g of the Latin alphabet, and it is very inconspicuous. Most languages reproduce this sound with two letters. Armenian is frugal and uses a single letter for it. Actually, the scientific name for it in the International Phonetic Alphabet is the very confounding voiceless alveolar affricate. Go figure.

Here is a perfect opportunity to beat the great Lord Kelvin at his game. All one has to do is to add this one single letter behind the word Srpazan and presto, true magic happens !!! We have the word Srpazants-Սրբազանց. A word that means "desecrator of holiness".

Now something tells me that the inventor of the first word, also mischievously invented the second. He was trying to teach us a lesson.

The question is, are we ready to learn?

Language, Beauty and Memory Part I

2008-04-12T19:31:00.000-07:00

About a year ago, I had received an email from the UK containing an exquisite short story. I stored it on my computer under the directory of "Important Files" for future use.

Some recent events that have touched me personally have triggered a memory to reread it, along with some other material which I had not touched since I was a teenager. More on that in a later post.

Here is the short story. Enjoy it !!!! The author is Edwina Charles

Pure Charm

A short story

by
Edwina Charles

Father Thomas stared grimly into the hallway mirror at his nearly perfect reflection.

He rubbed his well-manicured hands along his not quite smooth jaw line, thinking a closer shave was in order, but frankly had not the time, nor the motivation. Let’s face it; his only appointment today was with the elderly widow Mrs Gluff, who was near sighted and unlikely to pass comment. Still, he prided himself on his immaculate appearance. He straightened his already stiff clerical collar, put his jacket on and slammed the door firmly behind him.

Father Thomas was a noticeable figure in the small docile village of Bushdaisy. He was tall, narrow and dark – a bit like a long shadow cast by the evening sun. For a tall man, it was amazing how he managed to walk at such a brisk and jaunty pace, as if there were springs in his shoes. He had a charm about himself that disarmed the villagers. Greeting them tunefully; “Hellooo”, he would call out in a jolly singsong fashion, with a quick flash of his spectacular white teeth. Mind you, not everyone liked him; Mrs Green who cleaned the church and tended the flowers wondered what he had to be so jolly about. Yet, most people found his greetings infectious and would respond in a similar manner.

It was quite a walk, before he arrived at Mrs Gluff’s house. In his opinion this was a queer little house, in a sloping street, where all the houses were bunched together with no visible separation. He stood in front of the small front door, which was far too small for him to pass through without the inconvenience of stooping. Had it not been for his moral duty towards his parishioners, Father Thomas would have vowed there and then never to venture into such a miserable district again; where frankly any black hearted fiend with an eye for quality could relieve him of his watch and wallet. He waited without patience at the door for what seemed like an age. After some time, Mrs Gluff let him in apologising for her incapacity; she proceeded to move with great care and discomfort back to the sitting-room and into the comfortable armchair by the fire. “Take a seat Father. As you can see I’ve prepared tea and biscuits, so you won’t go hungry,” she said. Father Thomas stared down at the unappetising display; he had no intention whatsoever of eating what appeared to be stale biscuits and over-brewed tea. However, he smiled generously, “So kind of you Mrs Gluff, you should not have put yourself to so much trouble, especially in your fragile and clearly vulnerable state of health.” His compassionate words spoken in that silky smooth manner touched her deeply. When they were both seated, Father Thomas held up a hand, “Please allow me”. He poured the thick dark liquid into her teacup, then poured a handsome measure of milk from the small dainty matching milk jug. Reaching into his breast pocket, he retrieved a small leather bound bible, and at once began his reading, doing his best to ignore the loud chomping and slurping sounds of Mrs Gluff attacking her tea and biscuits. Soon the hour passed.

Before he left, Father Thomas gently took hold of Mrs Gluff’s dry weathered hands and held them between his own soft palms; “I shall take these teacups to the kitchen for you and then see myself out, now don’t you argue with me.” Mrs Gluff beamed again and sat back in her comfortable chair bemused by the sight of this tall good-looking figure of a man busying himself in her kitchen. Her Harold, bless his soul, in all the years they had been together had never once made himself so useful.

On his way out, Father Thomas hesitated in the dimly-lit space between the stairs and the front door. He looked at a rather exquisite figurine, which he had spotted when he first arrived. It was really quite beautiful and ought to have been placed in more suitable surroundings; he knew just the place for it. Shaking his head in quiet frustration, he picked it up, then with great care he wrapped it in his white silken handkerchief, popped it in his pocket, and left, shutting the door firmly behind him.

The End