Demokratizatsiya最新文献

{"title":"Democratization in Armenia: Some Trends of Political Culture and Behavior","authors":"V. Sahakyan, A. Atanesyan","doi":"10.3200/DEMO.14.3.347-354","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.14.3.347-354","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Historically, Armenian society was organized by strong communities established around the Armenian Apostolic Church, which helped these communities survive throughout the centuries despite the lack of a central authority. Community relationships are still very essential, especially during political processes such as elections. Community ties, combined with democratic ideas, have fostered some democratic practices, but the former Soviet republics still have a long way to go before they can be described as liberal democracies. Elections play an important role in a free society. However, in some Newly Independent States' societies, they are seen as a hindrance. Some Newly Independent States espouse their own kind of democracy, which, they proclaim, serves as a bridge between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East (Kazakhstan). In the case of Armenia, it is a Christian island on the border of Europe and the Muslim world. Key words: community, democracy, Newly Independent States ********** Armenia was one of the Socialist republics within the former Soviet Union, covering an area of approximately 11,500 square miles. During the process of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Armenia was one of the first countries to witness a national movement and fight for and declare independence in 1991, before the formal declaration of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Although still formally a Soviet country, building democracy and a wholesale transforming of Armenian society became necessities. According to the theory of social institutions, the elements of social structure of any society are tightly interlinked, and changes in one institution lead to changes in others. In the case of Armenia, changing or reforming the political institution necessarily would stimulate some innovations and changes in others, such as the economical system, education, family structure and functions, and the role of religion. This was a new process. Even if some of the leadership responsible for the transformation had a theoretical notion of democracy and democratic transformation, such knowledge was not sufficient to successfully implement a program of transformation and make it work. Experience is still being accumulated in Armenia, as well as in other post-Soviet republics, but it is difficult to use the term democracy to describe the political system in Armenia. Historically, Armenian society was organized in strong communities established around the Armenian Apostolic Church, which helped the nation survive through centuries of statelessness. For long periods of their history, Armenians lived under the domination of various empires. Starting early in the common era, and especially during the period that followed Armenia's adoption of Christianity as a state religion in the early fourth century, Armenia came under the influence of or was conquered by the Greeks, Romans, Persians, Byzantines, Mongols, Arabs, Ottoman Turks, and Russians. In 1920, after two years of inde","PeriodicalId":39667,"journal":{"name":"Demokratizatsiya","volume":"36 1","pages":"347-354"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81574795","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The South Caucasus: Problems of Stability and Regional Security","authors":"David Shahnazaryan","doi":"10.3200/DEMO.14.3.355-360","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.14.3.355-360","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: The establishment of irrevocable democracy, the rule of law, free market economic relations, and the protection of fundamental human rights have not yet assumed key significance in the South Caucasus countries. Consequently, all pressing problems of the region continue to intensify, keeping the region politically and economically unstable. Given contending geopolitical and geoeconomic interests, the region may develop into a center of clashes jeopardizing the currently manageable political instability. The focus of this article is to highlight the main threats to regional security and stability. Key words: Nagorno-Karabakh, NATO, South Caucasus Opposing Foreign Policy Vectors Division lines separating Armenia from the region became particularly pronounced in 1999, when the other Caucasus republics, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, walked out of the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty (CST), declaring their intentions to instead integrate with Euro-Atlantic security structures. In 2003, the CST was reorganized into the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), formed as a counter to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the eastward expansion of European influence. Armenia is the only country in the South Caucasus whose foreign policy serves the goals of the CSTO, and Armenian authorities see it as the only international framework ensuring the country's national security. On the other hand, Georgia and Azerbaijan are striving to minimize threats to their security by seeking the development of relations with NATO. Armenia's only relations with NATO, through its Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP), have been a part of Moscow's attempt to initiate cooperation between NATO and the CSTO. Armenian authorities state that the country's defense system stems from the assumption of NATO-CSTO dialogue. It is obvious that Armenia also hopes for the implementation of a June 18, 2004, decision of the CSTO's Collective Security Council, the core of which is a structural transformation of a one-level individual partnership, effective under the frameworks of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) and the Partnership for Peace program (PfP) into the format of a two-level individual-collective partnership with NATO. This is because every CSTO member country is also a member of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (CEAP), whereas Armenia is the only CSTO member developing an IPAP with NATO. There is little doubt that regional stability will be possible in the South Caucasus when the three states of the region belong to the same international security system. The harmonization, synchronization, and coordination of the foreign policy priorities of the three states can prevent the South Caucasus from developing into a hotbed of geopolitical clashes. This means that Armenia should revise its foreign policy. Armenia's IPAR however, is not sufficient, and the country should declare its intention to join NATO. While doing this, Armenia sho","PeriodicalId":39667,"journal":{"name":"Demokratizatsiya","volume":"1 1","pages":"355-360"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73004659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Politics of Independence and Transition","authors":"A. Sahakyan","doi":"10.3200/DEMO.14.2.171-183","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.14.2.171-183","url":null,"abstract":"Demokratizatsiya: You have played a major role in the Karabakh movement, the establishment of the new Republic of Armenia, and the establishment of its institutions and new political culture. What led you to be involved in the movement? What changed the Karabakh movement from a request for the annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast to Armenia to a national revival movement that aspired for democracy and independence? Sahakyan: The moving force of the Karabakh movement that emerged in February 1988 came from among the middle-level intellectuals within the literary, scientific, and teaching professions, and to a lesser extent also from the industrial or engineering fields. The political credo of this generation born after World War II was stamped by the duality of the times. On the one hand, this generation was raised under the influence of the Khrushchevian critique of Stalinist despotism, the hopes raised by the “thawing” of the cold war, and the antigovernment actions and ideals proclaimed by the dissident movement; on the other hand, their attitudes were warped under the pressure of the conformist dispositions of Brezhnev’s years of “stagnation.” The political line being pursued beginning in 1985 under perestroika definitely moved the pendulum of the intellectual and spiritual duality of our generation in the direction of law and justice. We endlessly devoured the life-giving air of freedom. In the workplace and in cafes, at intimate gatherings and at home we discussed Gorbachev’s bold political actions. We discussed movies, theatrical productions, literary works, speeches, political works, and articles of new faces, the news on tele-","PeriodicalId":39667,"journal":{"name":"Demokratizatsiya","volume":"68 1","pages":"171-183"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69881079","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"MacroInstitutional Political Structures and Their Development in Armenia","authors":"A. Markarov","doi":"10.3200/DEMO.14.2.159-170","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.14.2.159-170","url":null,"abstract":"The question of adopting forms of institutions, defining the manner in which state institutions should interact, and defining executive-legislative relations was part of the political discourse of all post-Soviet nations, especially in the early 1990s. In some cases the debate is still raging and the processes are ongoing, such as in Armenia, where a revised constitution was put to a general referendum in November 2005.In Armenia the issues of institutional design and the adoption of a new constitution, were put forward soon after Armenia's Supreme Soviet adopted the Declaration on Independence (which laid the groundwork for the referendum on the Declaration of Independence in September 1991). On November 5, 1990, the Parliament established the Constitutional Commission, which was comprised of twenty politicians, members of the Parliament, and lawyers, to draft a new constitution. The chairman of the Supreme Soviet, Levon Ter-Petrossian, headed the commission. However, before the commission's first meeting on October 15, 1992, the Armenian political system had undergone considerable changes. Based on the Declaration on Independence, which separated the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, the Supreme Soviet decided to formally establish the presidency on June 25, 1991, and to hold elections three months later on October 16. Ter-Petrossian scored an overwhelming victory, receiving 83 percent of the votes cast. Paruyr Hayrikyan, of the Union of National Self-Determination Party (AIM), received 7.2 percent of the votes, while the candidate of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (HHD) received 4.3 percent of the votes.While there was no doubt the presidency was necessary, there were disagreements over the limits of presidential powers. Two main camps, one favoring a stronger Parliament, the other a more powerful presidency, had already emerged in the summer of 1991. Those favoring the parliamentary system stressed its implicit democratic nature, cautioning against the ills of too much power being concentrated in the hands of one individual. They also argued that Armenia had a parliamentary tradition, pointing to the experiences of the First Armenian Republic (1918-1920) and Soviet Armenia. Furthermore, they argued, a strong Parliament would assist in the institutionalization of political parties, while a strong presidency would discourage it. Advocates of a strong presidency made their own arguments, stipulating that a nonprofessional Parliament, composed of weak political parties, would be detrimental to the young republic, leaving the country in anarchy, and thus one step away from the emergence of a dictatorship. They pointed out that using the Soviet system as an example was not a valid model, as real authority during the Soviet period was concentrated in the hands of the Communist Party and its first secretary, providing the basis instead of one-person and one-party rule. No less important for those arguing for a strong","PeriodicalId":39667,"journal":{"name":"Demokratizatsiya","volume":"172 ","pages":"159-170"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72495223","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"From Post-Soviet Studies to Armenianology","authors":"Asbed Kotchikian","doi":"10.3200/DEMO.14.2.303-311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.14.2.303-311","url":null,"abstract":"This article is an attempt to map the field of Armenian studies and studies on Armenia following the collapse of the Soviet Union. To manage this task, I trace the developments the literature on post-Soviet independent Armenia has undergone through a mix of reviewing and analyzing published material from the field of Armenian studies. Although this exercise might have loopholes and may not be inclusive, it should serve as a stepping stone for scholars wishing to venture into the field of Armenian studies or utilize Armenia as a case study for research in their respective disciplines.Armenian Studies or Armenianology?Labeling the studies conducted on modern Armenia can be accomplished by utilizing techniques used to define the field studying the Soviet Union. Beginning in the mid-1960s and continuing well into the early 1980s, a great number of texts attempted to address the conceptual/methodological difference between \"Soviet studies\" and \"Sovietology.\"1 Ironically, it was the end of the subject of the study-the Soviet Union-that made it possible to develop finite parameters of what was meant by these two terms. Aryeh L. Unger made one of the clearest distinctions in an article published in 1998:Sovietology concerns first and foremost the study of Soviet politics thus making it a field or sub-discipline of political science. While not the exclusive preserve of political scientists, specialists from other disciplines-history, economics, sociology, law, among others-may be considered as practicing Sovietology to the extent that their work touches on aspects of politics.2He continued:\"Soviet Studies\" suggests itself as an obvious candidate for the generic term designating studies in the humanities and social sciences that have the Soviet Union as their object, leaving \"Sovietology\" as the specific term designating the study of Soviet politics.3Furthermore, by looking into the classic definitions of area studies' goals, one observes four main trends: (1) providing knowledge of practical value about important world areas, (2) providing students and scholars with awareness of cultural relativity, (3) presenting an understanding of social and cultural entities as they exist in areas, and (4) furthering the development of a universal social science.4Based on these classifications and the distinction between \"ologies\" and area studies, it might be possible to operationalize the concepts of Armenian studies and Armenianology, as well as include the various publications dealing with post-Soviet Armenia under one or both of the two categories. The problem of Armenian studies, however, is that its lack of structure prohibits a multidisciplinary approach utilizing the various social sciences and language instructions, supplemented with strong supporting courses in history, government, or religion.5 Instead, those scholars dealing with Armenian issues have chosen to observe and analyze problems from the prism of a single discipline, pigeonholing their concerns ","PeriodicalId":39667,"journal":{"name":"Demokratizatsiya","volume":"32 1","pages":"303-311"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80813125","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Dual Citizenship Debates in Armenia: In Pursuit of National Identity since Independence","authors":"A. Harutyunyan","doi":"10.3200/DEMO.14.2.283-302","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.14.2.283-302","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Dual citizenship has been a highly contested issue in Armenia since independence. Contesting perceptions of Armenian national identity have largely contributed to diverging policies on dual citizenship. On the one hand, pragmatists have emphasized state security concerns, endorsed a civic type of national identity and rejected dual citizenship. Nationalists, on the other, have emphasized pan-national/ethnic security concerns, endorsed an ethnic vision of national identity and advocated dual citizenship based on ethnic criteria. Following a liberal nationalist approach, this article argues that national identity is not just a function of a pre-existing ethnicity or religion. It is primarily a political phenomenon and requires shared political experiences within a bounded political community. Therefore, granting citizenship to diaspora Armenians with different political experiences and worldviews most probably will restrict the capacity for self-determination among local citizens and will aggravate the existing democratic deficit and endemic lack of trust in government. Key words: Armenia, democracy, dual citizenship, national identity, nationalists, pragmatists ********** Constitutional amendments are a pivotal political issue for Armenia. (1) Among several changes that the amended constitution does not contain is a clause banning dual citizenship, specified in Article 14 of the constitution. (2) The issue of dual citizenship in Armenia has been at the heart of political debate since independence. As the National Assembly's (NA) Deputy Speaker, Ara Sahakyan, announced in 1994, debates around dual citizenship and citizens' rights and obligations divided the NA into two extreme poles. (3) This article discusses two interrelated themes. First, it will present official and opposition attitudes on dual citizenship in Armenia from 1994 to 2005. In this section it will be argued that the dual citizenship debate in Armenia is essentially a result of differing perceptions of national identity. While the pre-1998 official discourse on national identity clearly leaned toward a civic type, the post-998 official discourse is marked by a tendency toward an ethnic definition of national identity. A great deal of the literature on citizenship indicates that the historical link between citizenship and nationality is disappearing as a result of processes such as globalization and the proliferation of human rights. The importance and impact of those processes is undeniable. Yet the Armenian case indicates that the current debates on citizenship are also debates about nationhood. As William Rogers Brubaker argues, debates on citizenship \"are debates about what it means, and ought to mean, to be a member of a nation-state in today's increasingly international world.\" (4) Moreover, while adopting international norms and the standardized language of universal rights, states are in a position to mold and adjust the discourse to domestic priorities and security ","PeriodicalId":39667,"journal":{"name":"Demokratizatsiya","volume":"1 1","pages":"283-302"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79939942","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Economic Reform and War","authors":"H. Bagratyan","doi":"10.3200/DEMO.14.2.184-192","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.14.2.184-192","url":null,"abstract":"ormer Armenian Prime Minister Hrand Bagratyan discusses his tenure in office and his leadership in the transformation of Armenia’s economy from the Soviet centrally planned command structure to a free market system, the difficulties encountered, and the models that were considered. He focuses on the mechanisms adopted compared to other Commonwealth of Independent States countries. He also discusses what he would have done differently in hindsight.","PeriodicalId":39667,"journal":{"name":"Demokratizatsiya","volume":"14 1","pages":"184-192"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69881917","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Economic Challenges Faced by the New Armenian State","authors":"Armand Sarian","doi":"10.3200/DEMO.14.2.193-222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.14.2.193-222","url":null,"abstract":"The process of the political and economic transition of Armenia toward independence has similarities with the other republics of the former Soviet Union. Contextual specificities, on the other hand, are less known, because they are largely determined by an individual republic's transition toward civil society and a market-based economy.In the case of Armenia, this contextual specifity is Nagorno-Karabakh, which was, as of March 1988, at the center of a political movement initiated by a group of intellectuals meeting within the Karabakh Committee. In the context of perestroika and glasnost, these intellectuals supported the efforts of their Karabakh compatriots to correct the injustice committed by Stalin in 1922 that consigned the Armenian area of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan.This ended on September 21, 1991, with the proclamation of Armenia's independence based on a general referendum. The new leaders were not members of the old nomenklatura, and they quickly appeared to be proponents of democracy and a market-based economy. Independence, and the hope it inspired, made people optimistic that a new class of leaders would arise from the groups of intellectuals and former dissidents. The euphoria that gripped Armenia was reminiscent of what was happening in Central Europe, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Lithuania.Harsh economic realities that threatened the sovereignty of the young republic quickly constrained political independence. The country had to contend with the problem of how to make itself economically viable. The still-significant consequences of the earthquake in December 1988 and the economic blockade by Azerbaijan and Turkey exacerbated economic difficulties. This new political reality, which also applied to the other republics in the region, shed a new light on the geopolitical, economic, and strategic realities. It was under these conditions that Armenia began its difficult transition to a market-based economy.Armenia's MetamorphosisDuring the Soviet period, Armenia acquired the enviable reputation of being a successful, industrial republic with a diversified economy that specialized in technological research, especially research related to the military-industrial complex. In the 1980s, the number of graduates from higher learning institutions was one of the highest in the Soviet Union. Despite being deprived of natural resources, save for important copper, bauxite, molybdenum, and some gold deposits, the country succeeded in becoming a manufacturing and technological center. The manufacturing material arrived from outside Armenia and the products were then shipped to central planning bodies in charge of distribution. Given the significant contribution of industry to the net material product,! and an economy highly integrated into the Soviet system of production distribution, economic interdependence became excessive. This helps explain the domino effect that took place after the collapse of the Soviet Union.Industrial development in ","PeriodicalId":39667,"journal":{"name":"Demokratizatsiya","volume":"42 1","pages":"193-222"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82162253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Armenian Media in Context: Soviet Heritage, the Politics of Transition, Democracy, and the Rule of Law","authors":"M. Kurkchiyan","doi":"10.3200/DEMO.14.2.266-282","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.14.2.266-282","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: This article considers why the media industry has failed to promote democracy in post-Soviet Armenia. It attempts to explain why the media have been consistently unable to bring socially significant information into the public domain, and why they have failed to provide an intellectual space in which politically constructive ideas could take shape through exchange, negotiation, and confrontation. The core of the article gives a critical assessment of the factors that affect media operation in Armenia, such as the expectations of the audience, the reasons for the lack of demand for democratic media, the impact of the Soviet legacy on the normative framework affecting the media industry, the growing control of the political authorities over business activity in general, and a legal culture that marginalizes the rule of law. The analysis throughout is illustrated and underpinned by empirical data collected by the author during a series of research projects in Armenia. Key words: democracy, forms of dependency, freedom of the press, media consumption, rule of law ********** Although many social scientists recognize that democracy, free media, and the rule of law each have a life of their own, and do not necessarily come together as a package, (1) people still assume that the introduction of any one of these elements will strengthen the other two. (2) In the early 1990s, that assumption gave rise to the misleading expectation that if the media could be freed from Communist Party control, and placed under regulations that met international standards, it would become a powerful catalyst of the post-Soviet transition toward democracy. In pursuit of that vision, Western-sponsored programs emphasizing media reform were introduced in many of the new republics that emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union. The reforms were accompanied by an insistent rhetoric that stressed the importance of a free and independent media. But as time passed it became clear that this was not to be. The goal of an independent media bore little relationship to what was actually happening in Armenia. (3) Instead of taking a lead in promoting democracy, the press in Armenia and other post-Soviet countries quickly became involved in political and economic affairs, unashamedly violated the principles of integrity, and generally interpreted \"freedom\" as being free from every kind of restraint--including moral restraint. (4) Why was there such a failure of the media industry to promote reform in the post-Soviet independent states? Why did the industry not bring socially significant information into the public domain? Why did it not provide a climate in which constructive ideas could take shape? Why, well into the second decade after its formation, was it beholden to political and economic interests? And why did the media not succeed in building a working relationship with readers, viewers, and listeners? To answer some of these questions, it is necessary to place the media ","PeriodicalId":39667,"journal":{"name":"Demokratizatsiya","volume":"123 1","pages":"266-282"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80152779","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Redefining Armenian National Security","authors":"Richard Giragosian","doi":"10.3200/DEMO.14.2.223-234","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.14.2.223-234","url":null,"abstract":"As a region, the South Caucasus has traditionally been viewed as a prisoner to its geography, with its position as an East-West crossroads tending to also serve as an arena for competition among more powerful neighbors. For much of the past two centuries, this vulnerability was exacerbated by the competing interests of the dominant regional powers of Russia, Turkey, and Iran. Since the onset of independence in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the South Caucasus has also been seen as a hostage to history, with a particularly savage record of ethnic violence and outright conflict. It is this historical legacy that is most significant, however, as the region's infant states struggle with the challenges of independence and statehood.For the three states of the South Caucasus-Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia-there is an underlying set of shared challenges, ranging from the imperatives of economic and political reform to the impediments from a legacy of seven decades of Soviet rule. As each of these three infant states have adapted their own unique strategies for strengthening their sovereignty and statehood, the region has become increasingly marked by a deepening and diverging divide. Within this context, each state has followed a different trajectory that offers as much peril as promise for regional security. But of the three states in the region, it is Armenia that is in the weakest position, and perhaps most importantly, is the most unprepared to adapt to the dynamic shifts in regional security.For landlocked and energy-dependent Armenia, the disruption of traditional trade and energy links was the most serious and devastating development. By imposing a trade and transport blockade on Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan and Turkey compounded Armenia's economic vulnerability and isolation. It further excluded Armenia from participating in nearly all projects to promote regional integration and development, most notably the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline.Unlike its neighbors, the past fifteen years of Armenian independence have largely been marked by a comparative degree of internal unity and stability. Although there has been an absence of civil war or internal strife, external conflict and militant nationalism have, nevertheless, come to define Armenian national security. The core issue of Armenian national security since independence has been the unresolved conflict with neighboring Azerbaijan over the Armenian-populated enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. The Karabakh issue has impacted a wide range of Armenian policies, from the economic to the political. It has also influenced broader geopolitics by triggering a profound disruption of regional trade and energy links and altering Russian, Turkish, United States, and even Iranian strategies in the region. But what is needed now is a redefinition of Armenia's concept of national security. That redefinition necessitates an ability to go beyond the rigid confines of the Karabakh confli","PeriodicalId":39667,"journal":{"name":"Demokratizatsiya","volume":"12 1","pages":"223-234"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74473184","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}