Peter Rutland:

Democracy and Nationalism in Armenia

Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 46, No. 5 (1994)

The Armenian case is important in three respects:

1. its role in the breakup of the USSR;

2. its implications for the relationships between democracy and
nationalism;
3. its significance for Western theories of nationalism
Armenian national identity

- the significance of the diaspora the largest of all the Soviet republics

- Armenian national identity has all the traditional components of European nations:
1. a common history
2. a shared language
3. a sense of place
4. a common religion

- Armenia is the most ethnically homogenous of the former Soviet republics

1988: the struggle over Nagorno-Karabakh begins

- glasnost / perestroika hope for self-determination in the NKAO

- 1987-88: petitions, massive demonstrations in Erevan and Stepanakert
- Karabakh Committee led by Levon Ter-Petrosyan
- February 1988: pogrom in Sumgait
- May 1988 elections
- July: the NKAO soviet formally voted to secede from Azerbaijan
- December: earthquake in northern Armenia
- the leaders of the Karabakh Committee arrested
The nature of the Karabakh dispute

- the Karabakh issue as a question of principle

- relations between the communists and the opposition were less polarized
- the desire of moderate Armenian nationalists to negotiate

Moscow positions

- sympathy for the Armenian cause / fear of opening Pandoras box

- Moscow was not in fact prepared to give NKAO to Armenia
The 1989 elections to the USSR Congress of Peoples Deputies

- the Communist Party of Armenia (CPA) maintained tight control over the election
- two issues:
1. how to achieve the return of NKAO to Armenia
2. how to rebuild the country in the aftermath of the earthquake
- the Karabakh Committe called for a boycott of the elections
- victory of the CPA
- the large margins of victory suggested blatant cheating
1989-90: the slide towards war

- the leaders of the Karabakh Comittee freed

- formation of the Armenian Pan-National Movement (APM) with primary focus on
the reunification of NKAO and Armenia
- Azerbaijani road and rail blockade of Armenia
- 1 December 1989: the Armenian Supreme Soviet proclaimed the reunification of
Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia
- state of emergency in Karabakh
- January 1990: another wave of pogroms in Baku, claiming 160 lives
- the APM virtually took over the running of the Armenian Republic: helping
refugees, recruiting fighters and forming a joint Emergency Commission with the
government
The 1990 elections to the Armenian Supreme Soviet

- many complaints about the conduct of the elections: ballot stuffing, multiple voting
- CPA nominees: 43%
- APM nominees: 35%
- the CPA and APM were similar in many respects
- three separate processes in the elections:
1. a shift from the CPA to the legislature as the dominant institution of
political power
2. the APM won widespreead support
3. many communist leaders managed to preserve their positions
- the failure of the electoral process to produce strong political parties
- political life flowed around, rather than through, the parliament
Ter-Petrosyan establishes control

- tense relations between the Soviet army units and the unofficial militias
- a wave of violence swept Erevan before the 28 May Independence Day
celebrations (1990)
- August: the parliament elected Levon Ter-Petrosyan of the APM as its new
chairman
- state of emergency in Erevan
- the disarming of the militias proved to be less bloody than many had feared
The new government takes place

- 25 August 1990: declaration of sovereignty

- Ter-Petrosyans administration was held together more by personal friendship and
favours than by any particular political philosophy
- the ARF started to operate as a legal political party

The political system

- the parliament was held in low regard by the Armenian public
- presidential rule along French lines
- October 1991 presidential elections
- surrounded by controversy, far from fair
- increasing pressure on Ter-Petrosyan to acknowledge the independence of the
NKAO
- shattered economy (earthquake, warfare and blockade)
Armenian independence and the question of Nagorno-Karabakh

- rather than a unilateral declaration of independence, Ter-Petrosyan preferred the

idea of a five-year transition period
- the collapse of the USSR made independence unavoidable
- September 1991 referendum on the independent, democratic Armenia
- January 1992: the Dashnak leaders of the NKAO declared the province an
independent republic
- December 1991: Armenia joined the Commonwealth of Independent Nations
- January 1992: both Armenia and Azerbaijan joined the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe
Conclusion

- in Armenia democratisation and nationalism went hand in hand

- the Karabakh movement: the locomotive of democratisation
- democratisation in Armenia followed a distinctive discourse: it began in the
outlying region of Nagorno-Karabakh and then spread rapidly to Erevan
- the ability to win in elections was less important than the ability to control the
streets, to organise relief work, and to run a military campaign
- parliament became an increasingly irrelevant institution
- the Armenian case is an illustration of the close yet contradictory relationship
between nationalism and democracy
- decisive victory in Karabakh at the cost of great hardship and loss of life It
remains to be seen whether this was a price worth paying.