"The Driving Force of Change" (continued) - Karen AGEKYAN

The article by Karen Aghekyan, "The Driving Force of Change" (continued), is devoted to analyzing the transformations the Armenian nation is undergoing after the restoration of statehood, and in particular, to the new, deepening division within Armenianhood between the citizens of Armenian states and the Diaspora (Spyurk).

Introduction and Methodology. The author proposes to view the nation not as an aggregate of individuals with shared characteristics, but as an energy field whose forces wax and wane over time. From this standpoint, the history of inter-Armenian ties is analyzed—from the mutual alienation of "Turkish" and "Russian" Armenians in the 19th century (drawing on the testimonies of Peshiktashlian and Raffi) to the present-day state of "Homeland–Diaspora" relations.

The Sense of Unity. It is noted that the Soviet period, despite all the differences between socio-political systems, preserved a sense of commonality between Soviet and "foreign" Armenians through:

• a shared feeling of political non-independence;
• the pain of Genocide memory;
• the absence of a sovereign state as a dividing factor.

With the attainment of independence, Armenians for the first time (except for the brief episode of 1918–1920) acquired their own national Home, which created a fundamentally new, deeper distinction—not one of identity, but of the nature of possibilities: a citizen of his own state determines the life of the country, whereas a diasporan merely contributes his "mite" to the affairs of a foreign society.

The Civic Nation of the RA. The author distinguishes between the concepts of civil society and civic nation, pointing out that the latter is forming naturally in Armenia, since the homogeneity of the population removes most obstacles. It is noted that the psychological boundary between "us" and "them" inevitably shifts toward diasporan Armenians as the "closest others."

Provincial Liberalism. The ideological justification for alienation from the Spyurk is examined: the mass emigration of the 1990s changed the image of the diasporan—from a "direct descendant of the exiled" to the image of a person seeking prosperity abroad while practicing "comfortable patriotism." The author shows that this discourse was actively legitimized by the authorities—from L. Ter-Petrosyan's policy against the Dashnaktsutyun to "football diplomacy" and the campaign promoting the Armenian-Turkish protocols, aimed at undermining the moral right of the Diaspora to have a voice in national policy.

Key Conclusion. The author emphasizes that calls to limit Armenia's interests to "the pressing interests of RA citizens" ignore fundamental circumstances: the interest of the nation cannot be reduced to the interests of one or two generations, and power itself is not a neutral instrument for realizing "real interests," but consists of specific people with their own morality, which influences political course. Thus the question of the nature of the force of pan-Armenian attraction and its capacity to once again prevail over centrifugal tendencies remains open and requires further reflection.