"The Right of the Strong and the Idea of Equal Rights" - Interview with Andrias GUKASYAN

The article, an interview conducted by Karen Aghekyan with Andrias Ghukasyan, is devoted to the relationship between law and power, to the idea of equality of rights as a historical and moral category, and to an analysis of the political-legal model that has taken shape in post-Soviet Armenia.

Introduction and Methodology
The conversation, held at the end of 2012, is structured as a dialogue in which the interlocutors do not always reach agreement, yet consistently unfold the problem of law as an instrument for limiting force and protecting the weak. The material combines philosophical-historical reflection with a concrete analysis of Armenian political history of the 20th–21st centuries.

The Right of the Strong versus the Idea of Equal Rights
Ghukasyan asserts that law fixes the boundaries of human freedom and responsibility, while equality of rights is the greatest moral value developed by humanity in its struggle against the "right of the strong." Key theses:

• equality of rights has religious roots and is enshrined in the Declaration of Human Rights;
• oligarchy is the antithesis of equal rights; it exists through a system of patronage and privilege;
• genuine democracy is possible only where the majority of society truly grasps the principle of citizens' equality;
• the example of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement illustrates the conflict between society and large private capital that refuses to submit to moral norms.

The Soviet and French Experience
The interlocutors discuss the evolution of the USSR from the totalitarian model of Stalinism to the oligarchic state of the 1980s, as well as the French model of the Fifth Republic as an example of an alliance between the president and the people against oligarchy. It is noted that the 1995 Armenian constitution is formally similar to the French one, but is not grounded in a preceding declaration of values and does not reflect any real participation of society in the formation of statehood.

Armenian Statehood and the Karabakh Movement
Ghukasyan analyzes the Karabakh Movement as an example of the conflict between law and political will: at its initial stage the movement relied on a protest will without a legal foundation, whereas after coming to power its leaders abandoned legal opportunities for the sake of the idea of independence, which pushed the question of Miatsum (unification) into the background. Aghekyan supplements this analysis with the historical context of the Armenian national-liberation movement of the late 19th – early 20th century, emphasizing that it was built around the demand for equal rights rather than around separation or special privileges.

Realpolitik and Legal Policy
In the final part of the conversation, the relationship between realpolitik and legal values is raised: Ghukasyan defines realpolitik as the temporary subordination of fundamental values to current interests, permissible only as an exception, not as a system of political action.

The key conclusion of the interview is that the contemporary Armenian political model represents an inversion of the French experience — an alliance of the president and the oligarchy against society — and that the current constitution enshrines not equality of rights but a monopoly of power in the interests of a narrow group, making the overcoming of the oligarchic order the central task of contemporary Armenian society.