... Accustomed to switching from Fox News to CNN in an attempt to grasp a multitude of perspectives, some sound and others not, I was thrown into bewilderment by the absolute lack of dialogue on television. While protests continued on a daily basis on Northern Avenue, on television one was only privy to what strides the authorities were making in bringing about reform. As a rule, if the opposition was ever at all mentioned, it was in a negative light. To be fair, certain television programs did express discontent with certain issues pertaining to society; however, such programs tipsy-toed on the edge of that fine line separating civic issues from broader political ones. Reduced to its common denominator, I found this to simply be a sophisticated manner of pacifying the populous. As far as the real political debate that existed in streets, living rooms, restaurants, and taxi cabs across the country, the media was at best oblivious to it all, or at worst downright deceptive.

On more than one occasion I observed local friends lower there voices to a pitch slightly above a whisper when critical of the administrations handling of the political scene. I sensed uneasiness amongst students to engage one another in informed debate between the very real options available to them. It seemed to me that this uneasiness stemmed from a fear of transforming warm and friendly relations into simply cordial ones. To some, the opposition movement had failed to bring about the regime change they looked forward to. Vocal at the time, that support has now found solace in the private conversations of like-minded folk, while silence usually reigns where opinions could differ. To others, the government, while far from perfect, had successfully resisted an attempt at revolution by the man a significant portion of society still considers the architect of the very machine he now is attempting to take apart. And yet for others still, there remained that small glimmer of hope for a fourth quarter Hail Mary pass – from some invisible quarterback to some invisible receiver – that would save the fading opposition and bring about a new day in Armenia.

There was the perspective that "at least this particular regime provides stability. We know what we have." Quite frankly, this to me reeked of slave mentality; fearing release from one captor out of fear of falling into the hands of another. I have yet to understand what's so stable about a nation facing a constant security threat underperforming its hostile neighbors in almost every significant category – militarily, economically, in foreign affairs, and even in achieving domestic accord. Corruption remains rampant; the new tax "reforms" are forcing small businesses out of business, albeit – giving the government the benefit of the doubt – inadvertently; political prisoners are one by one being handed prison terms as opposed to being released; red berets and police in riot gear remain an intimidating everyday staple of central Yerevan; journalists expressing views contrary to the state face persecution on a daily basis; the list goes on….

Stability presupposes slow, but steady, development of civil society; of economy; of affluence; of national security. Armenia, contrarily, is experiencing a regression in most of these fields, if not all. Civil society has been stripped to its core due to March 1st; our national security is more of an issue today than it was five years ago; a significant portion of society remains impoverished and disenfranchised with no outlook for a better tomorrow; and economically, well, let's just say that the construction boom has reached its climax.
And in light of all this, the authorities are unapologetically, unbendingly unilateral in implementing their "reforms"; the members of the coalition propose the reforms, a legislature serving the whims of the executive votes on it, and a government controlled media shoves it down peoples' throats. Significant public discussions are curtailed to the best of the authorities' abilities by maintaining constant intimidating military and/or police presence in the streets. When something does happen – oh I don't know…for example, a well-respected journalist is attacked with no provocation – one of the representatives of the government – oh I don't know, like the prime minister maybe – suggests that the press is to be blamed for the attack, essentially suggesting that had they just kept their mouths shut, all these things wouldn't be happening. Maybe we should ask the prime minister; "so where do we go from here?"

I ask myself this question still, and with mounting impatience at my inability to find satisfactory answers. But those eleven weeks did in fact pose a partial answer to this question; my stay sufficed to at least illuminate the path the current authorities are paving for Armenia. I doubt I want to follow that road.

..."Armenian Professional Society" of Glendale, California ironic if not disturbing. My communication with the leader of this group clearly demonstrated that these people have very low standards and have not been following news for the past 12 months or so. Anyway, enjoy the letter.

An Open Letter to Mr. Vartan Oskanian

Dear Mr. Oskanian,

Two interviews I saw recently—yours and Mr. Hatspanyan's—focused my attention on you and the Civilitas Foundation.

As you can imagine, Mr. Hatspanyan's revelations have alarmed many Armenians. But I refused to believe that a man like you, a paragon of absolute dedication to our country, could be involved in such a dastardly plot. Until, that is, you explained the reason you established Civilitas: to build a civil society in Armenia.

Have you not noticed a civil society developing right before your very eyes, Mr. Oskanian? Not even on Northern Avenue, under your office window? It is no wonder you have taken the path you have, as you have chosen to blind yourself to the commitment to Truth, Justice and Equality, which has and is pouring forth from the citizens of Armenia.

You have yet to tell us what you mean by 'civil society.' What should the hundreds of thousands of citizens have done to have qualified for membership in your 'civil society?'

Rather then the pictures of their imprisoned fathers, should the boats made by children have carried the pictures of Tigran Torosyan, Eduard Sharmazanov, Aghvan Hovsepyan, Hovik Abrahamyan, Robert Kocharyan and Vartan Oskanian?

Should the women peacefully demonstrating on Northern Avenue have politely thanked the policemen for abusing them?

Should the citizens of Armenia have sent Thank You cards to then President Kocharyan for the calculated slaughter of Armenian citizens?

You may also want to reconsider the use of the term Civilitas, for grammatical and contextual reasons. It may sound good for PR purposes, Mr. Oskanian, but it does not mean, in your own words, 'to be a citizen,' Roman or otherwise. Nor does the Roman usage accommodate your foundation's epic blueprint for the 'salvation' of Armenian society.

The ambitious undertaking you have set for your Civilitas may come close to Dante's view of rebuilding human society, but, alas, without Dante's Humanitas and Civilitas. I would strongly suggest a second reading of Dante to understand what true Civilitas means, Mr. Oskanian. Pay special attention to the part about the right of citizens to make their own choices, and their right to exist for their own sake and not for the sake of someone else. Stated differently, to be members of a civil society, human beings don't need to have a blueprint of civil society imposed on them. After all, that would only pave the way to totalitarianism, would it not, Mr. Oskanian?

By far the most famous of Dante's works is The Divine Comedy, where he journeys through Hell, Purgatory and finally Paradise.

The Roman poet Virgil guides Dante through Hell and Purgatory.

Who will be your guide as you try to find a way out of your Hell and Purgatory, Mr. Oskanian? Muk? Lefik Samo? Nemetz Rubo? Dodi Gago? Or, will it be Rob?

Sincerely,

Penelope Morrison
San Francisco, California

... He was certain that the region was stable and the official asked himself, didn’t the new candidate in Armenia know that for the people of Armenia change of policies might mean peace and prosperity. Who were the people of Armenia to decide for themselves what was good for them. After all, wasn’t it Russia that allowed the people of Armenia to exist? Wasn’t it Russian largesse that made Armenians a happy people?

Then it was the turn of the wise folks in Europe and the United States who have the heavy burden of setting standards of democracy and of promoting it around the world. The same folk who had secured democracy in places like Iran (1953), Chile (1973), and Pakistan and Chad and Nigeria, and have now secured it in places like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The wise folk of the West determined that it was no use challenging the assumption that the heir apparent to the throne of this happy land would succeed the sitting president. And for that determination they did not to wait for the votes of the citizens of Armenia. After all, had they not provided relief to the survivors of the Genocide and built orphanages? Some of them had even recognized that Genocide officially. Wasn’t that enough? Wasn’t that recognition the only issue Armenians everywhere and anywhere cared about at any time? Besides, these promoters of democracy had more pressing issues: fostering democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq.


So it was that the benevolent dynasts of Armenia, the saviors in Moscow, and the guardians of the gates of democracy in the West all agreed: the election in Armenia was over before the election. None believed the first president could become a serious challenger. They had all believed in the mythology that had evolved around his presidency and his resignation. After all, they could throw at him his own troubles in 1996. All things could be made equal. Armenia was not important enough to be the subject of serious analysis. And opposition in Armenia had been neutralized before, coopted or bought outright. They had all reached a comfort level. The heir apparent would coast to a comfortable victory. Through elections. Somehow. No need to take those elections so seriously as to make a fuss.


Then the candidate, the first president, spoke and the people listened to his words. They even understood those words, although he spoke as if he was a lecturer analyzing issues in a classroom. The more he spoke, the more they came to listen. And to think.

What looked like a done deal started unraveling.

The intruder had no other way left to campaign but to organize rallies where he communicated his thoughts and vision for an Armenia, a vision interrupted by the 1998 soft coup that removed him. The fundamental problem, essential to Armenia but secondary at best to others, the Karabakh conflict, had not been resolved.

The sitting president and his heir designate could not understand why people, more and more of them each time, would listen to the candidate of the “dark days.” The people were, indeed, idiots at best and ingrates at worst. After all, weren’t there more restaurants and haute couture stores now in Yerevan than during his time? And weren’t there more tourists enjoying them? Wasn’t there a way, the dynasts thought, to replace the current population with another, a people more appreciative of the BMWs and Mercedes and Humvees in the streets. But, for the time being the oligarchs told the dynasts, their goons could not arrange for such an exchange, not in the short time available to them. But they could undertake short term measures.

So it was that evolved a regime of intimidation, beatings, and legal proceedings against supporters of the inconvenient intruder. No radio or television time. The one commercial TV station, in Gyumri, that dared broadcast a speech of the intruder as a paid advertis****t, was immediately visited by the state tax authorities and levied huge new taxes.

The violations of the electoral code and the Constitution multiplied. The campaign headquarters of the inconvenient intruder notified all interested in the violations of the electoral code. Most importantly, they notified them of the fundamental fraud being prepared by the dynasts. The electorate had been designed on the basis of the last census, which included all citizens who were living abroad but had had not formally renounced citizenship of the Republic of Armenia. Hundreds of thousands of them. Not allowed to vote in their current country of residence. But citizens who would end up “voting,” nonetheless.

Along with the violations of laws by the dynastic couple, the sitting president and his heir designate tried to portray themselves as paragons of Western values. An Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post, arranged by a PR firm hired by the dynasts at a rate of $65,000 per month, plus expenses.

Leaders of the Diaspora too were concerned with the success of the intruder, who happened to be the founding president of the republic, the one who had won the war, the one who initiated the democratization and economic reforms under the worst circumstances, the one who had brought international respect. After all, they argued, wasn’t he the one who had a questionable reelection in 1996 and brought out the tanks against those unhappy with that election process and its aftermath. The selective memory system had conveniently forgotten that in 1996 the opposition initiated the violence by kidnapping the speaker of the parliament and beaten the two deputy speakers. Hadn’t the resurrected candidate banned a political party, albeit that party had declared itself above the law and higher than the state? Deep resentments regarding his moderate policies re-surfaced. These policies were too challenging; they had disturbed the Diaspora leaders. The sitting president was more to their liking.

So it was that “liking” the sitting president who played basketball and “liked” the Genocide, although he had never read about it, and “disliking” the first president who wrote books, made them forget that it is the people of Armenia who decide, should decide, who the president should be, with all his faults and mistakes.

The dynasts also made sure that some of the international monitors were well “fed.” What were these restaurants for, anyway? Other monitors, barely out of college, were happy to be part of something important. Barely out of college but guardians of democracy just because they were Europeans or Americans. What do the people of Armenia know about democracy or about what is good for them? It is not in their genes, is it?

So it was that the election took place. And what an election! Hundreds of thousands, thousands of kilometers away from their homes, voted dutifully in their local precincts in Armenia. The authorities had made sure their right to vote had been honored, even if by proxy. The authorities had even made sure some citizens voted even before they got to their precinct. They had also made sure ballots that had been cast for the intruder and other candidates were piled in the right stack; it was a matter of correcting the bad judgment citizens had made while voting. A benevolent act.

And so it was that despite the evidence of the massive fraud, broken bones, loss of jobs, media manipulation contrary to laws that reached out to Western standards, the wise OSCE monitoring mission decided that the elections were, by and large, in accordance with Western standards.

The OSCE monitoring system had served the purposes of the already compromised monitoring system. Much like the arrangements and treaties in the 19th century that legitimized the rule of dynasts in the name of stability, with no regard for the views of the people; peoples must be managed. And dynasts, whether family or quasi-family based, secure stability or, at the least, continuity, and ensure predictability and, more importantly, manageability. Individual monitors have wondered, since the start of that program, what happened to their reports of massive violations. Well, these noble souls, despite their best intentions, either do not know how these reports are generated or know it too well. In 1996, the instructions to those drafting the reports were to maximize violations; in 2008 the instructions were to minimize them.

It did not matter, in this magician’s world, that later reports became more critical. It is the first pulse that counts, the pulse that legitimizes the elections. OSCE, the West in general, and Washington in particular have been trying to recoup some legitimacy since. The people in Armenia, the only choice we have so far for a people in Armenia, have been serious about their choice.

So it was that a debate at PACE and hearings in Washington were organized last week. To save shameless faces, in view of the relentless people finding a thousand forms of protest in that enchanted land of Armenia.

In the meanwhile, a regime of repression in post-election Armenia. Late night visits to homes, incarceration of over a hundred, thousands called into interrogations.

And eight citizens killed during a peaceful rally. Eight citizens who also happened to be human beings exercising their right to protest, somewhere in that enchanted land, citizens who believed in democracy. Citizens and human beings who did not know how OSCE monitoring reports are made and why. Citizens who thought diasporan Armenians believed in democracy. Citizens who did not know that on the 40th day of their death in the hands of Armenian forces, a new president would be installed at Liberty Square where it all started, with a parade of the forces that killed them. Citizens who did not know that leading Diaspora organizations would not recognize their death in the hands of the dynasts.

Indeed, something happened on the way to democracy. Something tragic.

But the actions of a people are not determined according to the rules of theatrical plays, whether comedies or tragedies. Less so for the people of Armenia who have had more than their share of tragedies and enjoy a good comedy.

...

Probably we as a nation (the term loosely used) should not be surprised of what was to come. It was written on the wall and unfortunately we did not have the guts to intervene before it was too late. Hindsight is right it is said, but foresight is much in need specially now.

Blaming this or that faction diverts us from the path that will lead us out of the impasse. The present primary leader of the opposition and the oligarchs ruling the country were in many ways cut from the same cloth. The elections of 1995 were a foretaste of what to come and the present authorities had their first lessons of how to exercise fraudulent and rigged elections then; subsequent occasions served to refine the practice in violation of human rights and deepening the roots of authoritarianism in a fragile country that can survive only and only through the participation of the majority of its people in the process of governance. Unfortunately that was not meant to be and people felt disenfranchised and disempowered

Compared to countries of similar size and emerging from a system of state capitalism on a grand scale, Armenia to its credit registered favorable economic growth. However, the beneficiary was the small elite of oligarchs and kleptocrats. Time and again in subtle and not so subtle ways authorities were cautioned of potential dangers, but they chose to ignore well intentioned advice. Instead they continued their insatiable appetite for more by amassing new fortunes and leaving the vast majority of people to its own skills in poverty. The disparity that ensued bloated the ranks of frustrated people who would express themselves in whatever way whenever an opportunity arose.

Well intentioned Diasporan organizations and individuals since the earthquake and subsequently lent a helping hand in many ways. Caught in fervor of romantic patriotism people prayed, hoped and wished that a new democratic Armenia would evolve - a country that respects human rights and is respected in the international arena. Over the years many intricately laced relations developed. In the course anomalies were noticed. At times some were very critical of how Armenia as a society was shaping. Yet despite that effort overall Diaspora was timid in drawing the line in the sand, forcefully making clear where it stands and what its expectations were. In a sense by being a reluctant bystander it de facto sanctioned ongoing violations of human rights and looting of the bounty.

It’s deplorable to notice that people who were minor partners in the present regime are now talking about introducing changes that would ameliorate the situation in future. They knew very well what was wrong prior to this recent tragedy. They were enjoying having ministers. Where were they prior to this tragedy? Why did they not introduce legislation to prevent what was to come? Now they accept the status quo and extend an olive branch to the authorities. That is pure and simple jockeying to secure positrons in a future government.

Equally deplorable are statements by a person in the government who had earned the respect of many in Armenia and Diaspora. Prior to the elections he made allegations that a particular opposition leader would do anything to get to power. What about the present regime? Isn’t it using all its might, including firing on its own people to remain in power? Why is he remaining silent? Is it a service to secure a position in the next government? Does he buy the Chief Prosecutor’s spokesperson’s denying any shots had been fired by the police?

Over years much has been said about outside interferences and influences in the internal affairs of Armenia. Now, that factor is being twisted in so many ways in order to silence opponents, dissidents and confound the understanding of what’s going on. All what’s left is to declare that so and so has committed treason and is a traitor. It’s an advantage of any authoritarian regime to pull out this or that document from the past and present to the public out of context to prove its point. The regime already had discredited itself in so many ways and its integrity was tarnished prior to the elections that now such measures will fall on deaf ears of many.

Speaking of outside interference, it’s a touchy subject and hard to document. All what can be done by an outside amateur observer is to glean from certain facts and make an educated guess at best. Why a country as small as Armenia boasts of having the largest USA embassy in the CIS countries? Why Armenia needs such a vast land ceded to a foreign jurisdiction, when it processes only a handful of visa applications and other matters in a day? Wasn’t it during this regime that the embassy was built? What’s its purpose?

If history has any advice to us it is resisting outside infiltrations as best as we can. The call for an investigation by international bodies is at best an ill advised measure. It will further intensify and confound the present tense atmosphere and the security of Armenia.

After all said and done it is the responsibility of any country’s government to restore normalcy and it’s an inescapable part of that obligation to take responsibility for whatever crisis. Blaming the opposition is not the route and will lead nowhere. Earnest cooperation is the only venue as long as it is not understood as co-optation.

Dikran Abrahamian BA, MD
March 9, 2008
Ontario, Canada

... Those who ordered armed Armenian soldiers against their fellow unarmed Armenian citizens in their sleep are doomed to be condemned by their people and history. I just hope that those who take on the responsibility of governing this nation after these events keep the nation’s best interest in their minds and remember that our people will rise again, if necessary, to keep the course on a truly stronger, prosperous, and fairer Armenia.

God bless the souls of those who left us yesterday.
God bless those who will keep up the fight.

March 2, 2008
London

...

I have to express them somehow and I am sorry that I found you to be the bearer of those pouring emotions and thoughts. Despite the fact that we had zero input in the realization of our collective dreams; despite the fact that independence shocked and confused us for a short period of time; we were soon jubilant. We had our place in the League of Nations, we raised our heads in dignity and pride and saluted our flag. We build a nation and created a country from the ashes of the Soviet system. We bore the shock therapy of moving from a totally centralized socialist economic system to a totally free capitalistic system. More was stored for us.

We fought a fierce war, and courageously won the dignified freedom for the people of Artsakh. We collectively sacrificed and paid a high price for that victory. Difficult times, painful years. Our people suffered a lot, our homeland was one third (or more) depopulated with scores of thousands seeking employment and livelihood anywhere on the globe.

Seventeen years have passed since independence and we have a few basic and natural expectations from the homeland we love and adore. We seek a decent living standard for our brethren there. But even in the absence of a decent living standard, we seek the most basic human rights that man has long fought for from times it could distinguish itself from other creatures. Yes, basic human rights. Freedom of expression, faith, freedom of movement, freedom of conscience and the freedom to choose, elect and cast a vote without intimidation, force, fear or pressure. The rule of law.

But what we have come to witness in the past decade is the continuous deterioration of all the above. Since this group of leadership came to rule, concentrating power by unspeakable means, we have witnessed the growth and spread of the policy of fear , spin and lie. We know it well unfortunately, since a similar atmosphere of fear, spin and lie has filled the air, in this adopted country of ours, the United States of America for the past seven years.

Some may not be surprised, but I am extremely shocked and disappointed to see the lust for power, the worship of material values, greed for wealth and more wealth spread so wide and so deep in an uncultured leadership that has taken over the helm of our country during the past decade. The lack of cultural values, the absence of civility and the policies of brut force have become the rule of the land. In my lifetime, I can hardly think of similar cases of so much wealth and so much power concentrated in the hands of so few who have so little to make their people proud of. Still, wealth falls behind in my worries. I am deeply concerned about my people. Those who still hang on to the national soil, the bearers of the torch, who have and continue to perpetuate our existence on our historical lands. Submerging their heads in the soil, this leadership has turned blind to the existence of widespread discontent and descent towards them. Or is it that they just don't care?

I have not been blessed with the opportunity yet to make my homeland my home as well. However, our life over the past three decades has evolved around the homeland and you are aware that I continuously have had a good deal of communication and relations with the people of the land. I have been reading a lot, receiving emails and talking to various people on the phone. This election is a total disgrace and unforgivable shame. The whole election campaign period has been a disgrace and shame. Our people have been mentally and psychologically slaved. They have been denied the free flow of basic information through the spoken media, be it radio or television. And they have been threatened by fear, fear and fear. Fear of losing their jobs or closing their businesses. Fear of breaking their bones or cutting their livelihood.

I have greater faith in our people. I trust their collective wisdom and given a free, peaceful and transparent atmosphere, I would trust their will and respect their judgment. Unfortunately the people of Armenia were deprived of that chance by this ruling cabal and so I cannot accept the officially announced results of this election as the will of the people. Many around me have also expressed their outright disgust and share my views. I remember having similarly reacted after the 1996 elections and echoed my sentiments at the time to you.

I feel it is my duty to do the same today and at least be in peace with myself. I don't think this is why we gained independence. I don't think we gained independence to replace dictatorships and regimes with ones who would return us to the repressive years of the mid 30s. Our people have suffered enough. Their families are broken and their means are meager. And in addition to all that physical pain they don't have to enslave their souls, lose their dignity, sell their free will and bow their heads in obedience. We are a proud people and we ought to remain so, free, dignified and independent. That is my wish today and I will fight for it.

I wish you all the best.

Sincerely,

Zaven Khanjian
Glendale, California
February 20, 2008

... Instead, their politics is scarred by authoritarian tendencies, judicial institutions are ineffectual, and the elite is not held to account. The result is the massive corruption seen across the region. When the state has sought to reform the economy, its major effort--to privatize public assets--has led to widespread poverty and a drastic decline in the ability of state institutions to fulfill their obligations even to the most vulnerable groups of society--the young, the sick, and the elderly. Change labeled `reform' has brought unemployment and economic deprivation, in turn sapping the cohesion of communities and encouraging young people to turn to crime to earn their living. The value of honor, once at the heart of traditional local institutions, is increasingly being replaced with behavior dictated by the mechanisms of economic survival. In the absence of both traditional structures and the rule of law, economic privileges and physical force are what determine social relationships. As society and the economy have regressed, the political culture of the southern Caucasus too has failed to progress toward the adoption of Western standards and democratic practices. Political culture--as a sum of norms, values, and typical attitudes--to a large degree depends on historical experience, the dominant religion, the level of education, and the artistic culture of a nation. Political culture gives a tone and a structure to the overall political process and, depending on a nation's maturity, contributes to making a state stronger or weaker. While Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan each have a specific history that plays an important role in the way their political cultures work today, the region has common features forged by the Communists' rule that seem unconducive to the building of independent states. History, therefore, can provide some explanation to the region's immature political culture. However, another cause of immaturity--and one of the most distinctive characteristics of the region--is provincialism. Provincialism is a specific mentality typified by localism, illiberality, narrow-mindedness, and a lack of sophistication or perspective. Provincialism is about attitudes, not geography, or origin. The traits of a provincial man are a superficial technical rationalism, admiration for rank not personal qualities, absolute self-belief, and a mentality that is utterly consumerist. Provincials tolerate any political system, seeing it as unavoidable, and pursue their personal interests through nepotism and blat. Provincials are conformists who appease and adjust themselves to their rulers. They readily shift `allegiance' to a new ruler if they see that the throne of the current leader is shaking. They take no responsibility for the advancement of society and, in their pursuit of personal gain, brim over with the spirit of the gambler. They cannot grasp nuances, and the genuinely civilized culture and attitudes they seek to imitate are beyond their grasp. The handicaps of the provincial man are handicaps that neither education nor experience can overcome. The inverse of the provincials' narrowness is "cosmopolitanism"--a worldly, open-minded attitude, modern in thinking and with a sense of the bigger picture. Anything that makes societies more cosmopolitan--be it extensive education, a broader and more sophisticated vision, or civilized political manners--enhances their maturity and, thus, enriches their political culture. Cosmopolitans take an interest in the forest, not just the trees, and their public-spiritedness and sense of responsibility promote the modernization of their societies. They understand that it is capable people, not conformists, who need to be encouraged if a successful modern state is to be built. In the southern Caucasus it is provincialism that prevails. It has degraded the top echelons of these societies, and has contributed to ensuring that the elites are incapable of bringing tranquility, consolidating democracy, and developing functioning state structures. Provincialism has weakened the region. A provincially minded executive places self-affirmation above civic concepts such as "statehood," "society," or "fatherland," and self-interest above the national interest. Instead, such an executive dismisses as "inconvenient" all those who call attention to serious issues related to the notion of statehood. These attitudes have exacerbated the public's apathy and its disgruntlement with the meager benefits brought to them in the name of independent statehood. The result has been mass emigration from the region. Since independence, the states of the southern Caucasus have lost nearly four million of their people to emigration. Most were well-educated, economically active, and reform-minded citizens. They could have made up the region's potential "middle class"--a politically vigorous, creative, and a stabilizing stratum of society. Does this imply that for the countries of the southern Caucasus the notion of state-building is alien - and that this is the cause of their provincial political culture? Certainly, for the newly independent nations in the region, statehood did not return like a season of the year. State institutions, electoral bodies, independent judiciaries, and non-governmental organizations need to be built up consistently and systematically. New political movements and institutions, especially at the local level, need to be made viable and capable of promoting the representation and participation of all social groups, especially marginalized groups such as women, ethnic minorities, the infirm, and the disabled. Above all, the elites need to be open-minded in their attitudes and tastes if they are to lead their nations towards relatively harmonious statehood. A number of factors have affected the quality and competence of the nouveaux elites in the region. An important one is the socio-economic hardship of the past decade, which created critical shortages of professional cadres. However, personnel shortages cannot serve as an excuse for the incompetence of the elites. They are ineffective primarily because of their self-doubt, a lack of confidence that is often exhibited in a fear and a lack of appreciation for the qualities of competent generalists and in an unwillingness to share authority--in practice, principally with parliaments, local governments, or judiciaries. It is an open question how, and whether, largely provincial nouveaux elites can become more open-minded. The provincial mindset is not easily changed. At the same time, a transformation of society is needed: as long as this narrow, self-centered mentality governs the elites, the region will continue to sail without a compass, stuck in the doldrums far from the benefits promised by modernization. What could perhaps generate a change is, in fact, the stagnant nature of the post-Communist transition, which has caused public dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. There may be an increasing demand to see popular concerns reflected in the political order. Moreover, as new states, the three nations of the southern Caucasus need to become open to the world and to adapt themselves, however slowly, to global processes. The major challenge for progressively minded elements in these societies and for the international community is to foster citizens' participation in homebred, participatory reform processes, and to engage them in a political dialogue about the challenges that the region faces. There is, it seems, a tacit battle between provincialism and cosmopolitanism in the region. If a modern state is to be built and developed, provincialism cannot be allowed to win.

Anonymous