Our Analytics 25 april — 12:52

View of Yerevan revolution from Baku (Right to president and revolution, Part 2)



In my first article, timed to the post-election situation in Azerbaijan and Armenia, it was not by chance that I stopped my attention on the people's natural right to choose and to revolution. An attempt was made to theoretically comprehend and substantiate the modern form of the will of the people. The development of philosophical thought about revolution over the past ten years has undergone drastic changes. In the original classical understanding, first of all from the point of view of Marxism, revolution is a radical breakdown of the socioeconomic formation and the system of state administration. Revolution is designed to change the system of social relations and economic structure, and at times the radical transformation of the state. This is the whole essence of revolution, its distinctive feature from a trivial and mediocre coup.

Coup is not a revolution

Eternal question: revolution or coup?

Pay attention, even in Soviet historiography, the Great October Revolution, right up to the renaissance of Socialist Realism, was called by historians the October Coup. A coup is a people's or an armed rebellion, and it is directed only at the change of the political elite.

With the collapse of the socialist camp and the first wave of the replacement of the Communist elites, a new assessment of the nonviolent coup appeared, a 'velvet' one, and later, in the midst of the 2000s a 'color revolution.' True, for the first time the velvet, non-violent revolution, even before Havel's dizzying success, struck the imagination of a modern man in Chile, with the displacement of the dictator Pinochet.

Revolution, in the classical sense of the word, is necessarily a violent seizure of power, after which everything changes from the form of ownership to the state structure and economic formation in the country. But a new historical trend brought to our lives a qualitatively new historical process - a non-violent revolution that causes the change of elites, but not formations.

When did these nonviolent revolutions begin? When the people are deprived of the right to choose and the right to vote. With usurpation of power, or its absolutization. In the past, with the emergence of capitalism, the people a priori did not have the right to vote. And violent revolutions took place in the name of this right. Now in all constitutional regimes the people have this right. But often, with the usurpation of power, the people may lose their constitutional right to choose.

Another eternal question: why is there no revolution in Baku?

In Azerbaijan, power granted the people the right to choose. Moreover, the government granted the people the right to political protest. If only a century ago, Western bourgeois thinking rejected revolution as a left-wing attack and a threat to the foundations of bourgeois democracy, then in the post-communist and liberal era, revolution is called upon to spread the values of Western society. Such a paradox, such a transformation! What is the people's right to freedom of expression? Revolution as a counteraction to the usurpation of power. In the fight against despotism, evolution breaks its teeth...

As it was mentioned several times, the Azerbaijani opposition, accusing the authorities of usurpation of political power, realized its right to protest and civil revolution. In the center of the city the opposition was given a large area. And on this square, where the opposition has been calling the people to overthrow the government for about a year, no more than a thousand people gathered. President Ilham Aliyev was nominated for the fourth time, and one can say with confidence that the absolute majority of the people supported him in the aspirations to continue the course of political and economic reforms. The people chose Aliyev, chose stability, reforms, prosperity...

Opposition's last rally in Baku

An identical scenario unfolded in neighboring Armenia. Sargsyan was nominated for the third time, this time in the prime minister incarnation. But it did not change the essence. And he gave the opposition, who accused him of usurpation of power, an area for expression of will and the right to non-violent revolution. In Yerevan hundreds of thousands of people came to this square, the country in a few days was dragged into the quagmire of the deepest political crisis, social collapse and civil confrontation. Sargsyan was supported only by the elite and a miserable bunch of supporters, the opposition by the whole society. On the square flames of revolution flared up, spread all over the country, all cities and villages. The people rejected Sargsyan, speaking for an alternative way of the country's development.

Opposition's last rally in Yerevan

Azerbaijani opposition assures us that such a scenario would not work and even seem unrealistic, since arrests and repressions are taking place in the country, and opponents of power are under unflagging political pressure. Let me refute: during the protests in Armenia, the leaders of the movement - Nikol Pashinyan, Sasun Mikaelyan and Ararat Mirzoyan were detained. And the number of arrested political activists has exceeded a hundred!

The question is the formation of a qualitatively different situation: imagine that immediately after the election in Azerbaijan, the opposition gathers in the square not a thousand people, but a hundred thousand. On the square Mehsul come well-organized columns of tens of thousands of people, and an unremarkable protest pours out into a large resistance movement. Ali Karimli and Gultekin Hajibeyli had hoped for that. After all, it was to this that they called their supporters in social networks. By the way, one more important argument: Armenian opposition is not allowed on the television, they conducted their propaganda through social networks.

Karimli and others like him for some reason believe that the lack of opportunities for TV propaganda deprives them of the chance to communicate with the broad masses of the people. Delirium, if not to say, political dementia! It's time to understand, the TV box is yesterday, the whole revolutionary propaganda proceeds in social networks, and protest masses are organized there, which was demonstrated by the experience of Armenia. Hence the whole problem is not in the means and methods of struggle, but in popular support and expression of will. The Armenian people did not follow Pashinyan and his small party 'Yelk,' as well as his marginal associates, but against Sargsyan and the authorities. This is because many experts see the failure of the opposition in the absence of strong and charismatic leaders in Azerbaijan. The people did not come to the square not because they do not accept Ali Karimli, but because they do not want a change of president and government. And no fear can limit the people in the struggle for the revolution. The Armenian government was fierce, brutal, sat on bayonets, filling jails with political prisoners. The dispersal of the Electromaidan and "Sasna Tsrer" are examples of the violent ruthlessness of the grouping of Karabakh warlords. The oppositionists in Armenia were not treated nicely. Quite the contrary. Hence, this is a weak argument. The reason is not in opposition, in persecution, in the essence of the regime, or even in the charismatic nature of the protest leaders. The reason is in the people's attitude towards the government. And, as we mentioned in the previous article, in the vote of public confidence.

Aliyev's government is trusted, and the future of the country is connected with the current president, while Sargsyan has completely exhausted the limit of people's trust. As he admitted in his farewell address to the country: "I was wrong." And now we will stop at what is happening in Yerevan itself.

Another question: who shook Armenia?

From the first days of the revolution, supporters of the "faked version" voiced different estimates - from the "Russian trace" to the Washington roller coaster. Undoubtedly, in the forefront of the Armenian protest are politicians and public figures who have been advocating for integration with the West in recent years. In the ranks of the protest movement, the pro-Russian politicians could not turn out, as Sargsyan and his government personified allied relations with the Kremlin. Armenia under Sargsyan was named Moscow's main outpost.

Therefore, why should the Russian so rudely and inappropriately break stability in the territory of their closest ally? But the supporters of the version of the "Russian trace" are wondering - why didn't Russia, which feels itself in Armenia at home, interfere in the situation and prevented the overthrow of its satellite?

Moscow did not come to Sargsyan's aid

The authors of this question should reflect on the complex international situation around Russia, which is still in the grip of the consequences of the Ukrainian blitzkrieg. How to get into another country, when the whole world demands from the Kremlin an early withdrawal of troops from Donbass and Crimea. Russia has a lot of levers in Armenia, experts say. What are the levers? Army? Special services? Hastily gathered so-called "people's militias"? How do you imagine the involvement of Russian strongmen under the yoke of Western sanctions in the intra-Armenian conflict? It is possible to say with a high probability that before the sanctions war Russia, apparently, would openly enter into a conflict. But not today! Of course, Russia was interested in prolonging Sargsyan's power. Just two hours after the end of voting in the Armenian parliament, Putin phoned and congratulated his reliable and experienced ally, the new Prime Minister Sargsyan. But after the explosion of popular indignation, Russia could not help Sargsyan anymore. Most likely, the Kremlin persuaded the newly-made prime minister to leave as soon as possible. But not because it yearned for his resignation. In the current international situation, Russia is not interested in the appearance of yet another hot spot on its southern borders. A new war requires new money and new efforts. And new forces! And Russia today has come face to face with unprecedented international pressure aimed at the final undermining of its economy. They would have to pay a very high price for tanks in Yerevan.

Of course, Russia will try to intervene in the situation. And it will do it. But not openly, not now and not by force. Moreover, the Kremlin seems to have learned a great lesson from the "Ukrainian boiler". If Russia had once made a bet not on military intervention but on political manipulation of the situation in Ukraine, now in Kyiv there would have been a pro-Russian, not a pro-Western, government. And in Moscow they concluded that the Yerevan drama once again confirmed it.

Russia can't think about tanks now

So are the events in Yerevan a Western script? Western institutions, unlike Russian ones, do not work situationally, but systematically. Over the years of his reign, Sargsyan has not been able to completely abolish the influence of Western institutions. Pro-Western structures are openly working in Yerevan to this day, and Soros funds finance a part of critical mass media. In Armenia, Western institutions feel quite free... And Russian institutions have nothing to oppose Western influence. After all, it is important to understand that the West intervenes in the situation by spreading the ideas of popular liberalism and captivating freedoms, as well as, of course, integration with the space where people live best on our planet. And it is very difficult to oppose this clear formula. Therefore, the West does not need to interfere with the hands of its strongmen and special services. It offers a more successful and fair model of the life system. Progressive human civilization is identified with the developed West. And Russia, as well as other global players, even developed China, has nothing to counter this civilizational model.

All conspiracy versions are deprived of the right to life. Armenians are tired of living in poverty, under the tank tracks of the Karabakh commanders, in an amorphous state of lawlessness. Sargsyan's departure was a foregone conclusion. In addition, it seems that a split has arisen inside the Armenian elite. It was felt that someone actively played along with the protesters. But today it's not about that.

I ask myself another question - what will arise on the remains of an immoral, militaristic, corrupt and decayed system? Indeed, in Armenia, along with Sargsyan, the whole structure of the political system collapsed. The power shifted from parliament to the streets. And there, in the hands of unknown and unpredictable leaders, a new government and a new political system should be formed. But which one? And where will this unknown authority lead the people and the country? A quarter of a century ago, the same unknown and unpredictable power led the people to occupy Azerbaijani lands. What awaits us now? After all, any change in Armenia, not to mention the collapse of the whole system, will involuntarily affect the fate of Azerbaijan! Let's stock up patience and wait for the final outcome. Especially since it is already near...

Latest news