It seemed that the same scenario would work for the presidential elections following the parliamentary elections, aiming at demonstrating “the most powerful” behavior of the incumbent prime minister and his political team and reinforcing the clichés related to it. In May, the parties related to the authorities were already conducting the pre-election struggle from the position of winners, demonstrating the lack of any worthy alternative with their behavior. The alternative options had been so much degraded and placed in advance in a compromising position, having been presented as disorganized big talkers that seemed so unable and weak beside the “powerful of the country” that an ordinary voter would hardly want to be identified with those people, preferring those who had taken up the roles of “those who solve questions” and not those who gave empty promises or just found faults with everything.

As for the opposition, they were “exhausted” from the start since they were deprived of the main means of communicating with the population, had less financial resources and, seemingly, had accepted the rules of “you cannot make your way to anywhere till we are here.” The opposition was trying to justify its actions as if they had already been defeated, which had its psychological affect on the voters. The opposition that had not been united was not being perceived as a serious opponent and alternative, and they couldn’t even take up the position of a weak opponent, turning into dust the potential ballots of the huge displeased segment. The leaders of oppositional parties often forgot about the authorities, throwing mud on each other. In this context, it was logical that the people preferred “red, blue, apricot-colored” over “always gossiping, quarrelsome protesters.

Thus, in May 2007 the public, according to the sociological poll, chose “the lesser of two evils,” proving the ancient wisdom stating that “one today is worth two tomorrows” and “never swap horses while crossing the stream.”

However, the political developments caused rather unexpected clarifications, waking up the ghosts of the past and activating the memories of “the dark and cold,” making alive the rally culture of “struggle-struggle,” arousing the passions and hopes of the society that seemed apathetic and, within one moment (rather, within 10 minutes of the speech in Marriot) moved the political struggle from the rational ground to the irrational one – to the field of emotional and aroused passions. It looks like a psychiatric diagnosis when the impressive and emotional situation that had been made silent for years and undergone a subconscious taboo, suddenly erupts… And it turns out that “nobody and nothing have been forgotten.” A part of the society revives the happy moments of national unity when the authorities consisted of intelligent people having scientific degrees and knowing foreign languages, and the other part curses the people promoting “the dark and the cold” that were guilty of all their unhappiness.

The extreme emotionalism of the previous paragraph is nothing but the attempt of the author to convey the moods in our society when political debates move to people’s kitchens, when opposite camps are being created, when neighbors and friends stop communicating, and all the communication leads to seeking the answers to the questions “Who is to blame?” and “What to do?” These are the ever-lasting questions asked by our population – when and from where, or who started the fake elections, official corruptions, the atmosphere of robbery and anarchy, who brought certain people to power, who cheated certain people, etc?

Analyzing the situation from the position of a political sociologist and an image-consultant, I would say that, even if it weren’t for Levon Ter-Petrossian, Serzh Sargsyan’s political consultants should have invented him. Experts in political technologies are well aware of such a political trick as “creating an effect of contrast.” In the area of political mythological design, it acquires the look of “a hero – an antihero,” which is one of the most applicable techniques in political struggle.

The logic characteristic to the human soul (right-left, up-down, good-bad) modifies into the perception of a black and white world. The contrast between “Us” and “Them” is connected with public relations – in the context of “Them,” “Us” is the group of personal identification, and “Them” is the group of the enemy’s identification. That couple is, in principle, is inseparable since the parties fill each other, mutually conditioning the emergence of each other – one cannot exist without the other. Many of the political fairy tales created based on such a principle in politics are narrated according to the formula “hero – antihero.”

The myth about the “hero” particularly obtains importance in instable times for the society – in conditions of numerous social and economic problems, existing orders, and mistrust towards the authorities. Thus, the need in a strong hero - a charismatic leader – is formed. Such a leader is attributed with all the positive changes existing in the society, including the skills and abilities of making new changes. However, all these characteristic features and skills of the “Hero”, as well as his need of appearing, become more apparent in the context of the existence of enemies and anti-heroes. And here the main problems and the critical situation are actually “being attached to certain persons that are responsible for eliminating those crises and problems.” Based on the logic of the myth, “the culprit” can no more correct the existing situation. Moreover, in the further course of the events of the “Heroic” myth, any negative feature or a deed is also being “attached” to the second image of an “enemy.” By defeating the “Antihero,” the “Hero” also automatically overcomes the mentioned problems of the society and wins their trust.

In our conditions, the preconditions and goals of applying that mythological motive could be the following:

First of all, the international public, in the person of observers and the structures defining the policy of our country have been demanding to show some particles of democracy. In the perfect world, the peak of the illusion of democracy for this case will be the elections implemented in two rounds – in conditions of pluralism of opinions and positions. As it had already been mentioned, none of the representatives of previously erased and destroyed opposition is able to play the role of the most worthy opponent to the incumbent prime minister and the most possible winner of the presidential elections. Thus, it was necessary to create, form and discover such a strong opponent that would be perceived like that by the society.

Secondly, by awakening the memories of “the dark and the cold,” the ruling forces get rid of the necessity to present new problems and ways of overcoming them, which is hard, unrealistic and has no prospects.

Meanwhile, by reminding people of the hell that they have passed through due to Levon, Sargsyan, on the one hand, becomes the participant in the victory the monopoly of which used to belong to Kocharyan, on the other hand, distracts the attention of the public from really relevant social and political issues, such as the drastic fall of the dollar, increase of prices, the negotiation process around the Karabakh issue… The list can be continued.

Perhaps, that’s why one of the most applicable technologies today is organizing electric blackouts (a brave prediction to make – the closer the elections, the more frequent the blackouts will be.) Even a harsh winter shall be to the benefit of the candidate related to the authorities since it will remind of the winter in 1992, whereas the presence of electricity, gas and water will become the most powerful arguments in favor of the prime minister.

In our country, unlike the Russian Federation, it is not sufficient to be the “heir” of the platform proclaims by the incumbent president. Moreover, in some cases it is even necessary not to be identified with Kocharyan, in order to win the attention and trust of the crowds. And for that, new pretexts and new victories are needed. In our case, we have to deal with two very skilled, professional politicians whose steps made until now had been thought out worked out in detail (distribution of CDs on behalf of Ter-Petrossian’s supporters, as a brilliant example of a cheap and effective PR action.) I think, in the light of the above-mentioned facts, it is not surprising the struggle between these two political titans is in the center of the attention of the mass media and the public (the other candidates are almost being neglected.) Ter-Petrossian’s brief speech at Marriot was being covered for a long time by all the mass media (there was an impression that all of them had been hired to implement Ter-Petrossian’s PR.) It is not surprising that almost everything he says leads to a response in the comments of the incumbent president, the prime minister and other “authorized persons.” And our media world knows very well how to destroy the news and not to make it a pretext for public resonance by being silent and neglecting it. Whereas, on the contrary, they are involved in actively forming and promoting the image of a malicious evildoer, as if forgetting that there have been such examples of villains in history and literature that were able to attract and enchant the crowds.

The humanity, actually, has an ambivalent, dual attitude towards the so-called “evil.” And, by creating an image of a “100%” enemy, it is possible to face a completely contrary result, in which case the public interchanges the images of an “enemy” and a “hero.”

Although, in order to prevent that danger, the myth of a “Protégé” will be soon activated in the conditions of such development of events.

NVARD MELKONYAN
Candidate in sociological science