ARMENIAN ELITE REPRESENTATIVES’ATTITUDES TOWARDS DEMOCRACY

Armen Grigoryan and Hamazas Danielyan

3rd ASCN Annual Conference

June 22, 2013

THE OUTLINE

The role of elites in democratic transformation

Research methodologyFindings

CLASSICAL THEORY OF ELITES

Mosca (1896), Pareto (1935), Michels (1915) Elites (ruling class) are inevitable in any society, which makes Aristotelian democracy impossible.

Mills (1956) located elite representatives in US who had concentrated the power in their hands and were considered to be a treat to genuine American democratic system.

REVISION OF CLASSICAL THEORY

Schumpeter (1943) “The democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.”

Dahl (1971), developed system of mutual security and guarantees between elite representatives are necessary for a stable polyarchy.

ELITES AS AGENTS OF DEMOCRATIZATION

Rustow (1970) considered elites as main agents of establishing democracy in Western European countries.

O’Donnell & Schmitter (1986) “There is no transition whose beginning is not the consequence of division within the authoritarian regime”, (hardliners and soft liners).

Huntington (1991) and Diamond (1999) consider elites to be the most immediate and significant explanatory variable for explaining democratization (among others variables).

TYPOLOGY OF ELITES AS CONCEPTUALIZED BY HIGLEY & BURTON (2006)

Disunited: Structural integration and value consensus are minimal in the sense that communication and influence networks do not cross partisan lines and elite sector boundaries in any comprehensive way. Partisan factions and elites in different sectors manifestly distrust each other and engage in unrestrained, often violent struggles for dominance that have a zero-sum or ‘‘politics as war’’ character. 

TYPOLOGY OF ELITES AS CONCEPTUALIZED BY HIGLEY & BURTON (2006)

Consensually united: Structural integration is extensive in the sense that overlapping and interlocked communication and influence networks encompass and tie together all influential factions and sector elites, with no single faction or sector elite dominating the networks. Value consensus is extensive in the sense that, while factions and sector elites regularly and publicly oppose each other on ideological and policy matters, their actions over time suggest an underlying consensus about most norms of political behavior and the worth of existing political institutions.

TYPOLOGY OF ELITES AS CONCEPTUALIZED BY HIGLEY & BURTON (2006)

Ideologically united: Structural integration is extensive in the sense that a single communication and influence network encompasses all elite members, and it is sharply centralized in a few top leaders through the party, movement, or sect they head. Value consensus is extensive in the sense that elite members express in public no significant ideological and policy disagreements and instead conform their public statements to a single ideology, religious doctrine, or ethnic creed, the substance and policy implications of which are construed officially by the uppermost leaders.

TYPE OF ELITES AND REGIMES

Ideologically united stable representative Consensually united stable unrepresentative Disunited unstable representative unstable unrepresentative

OPERATIONALIZATION OF “POLITICAL ELITE”

Positional, reputational and decisional analysis as the main approaches (Cummings, 2005).

We defined political elite as a group of individuals holding strategic positions within a political system, which enables these individuals to influence political decision making directly and regularly.

METHODOLOGY AND DATAIn depth interview guide consisted of five main

sections: general overview (gender, age, position, etc), the life-story of interviewee (childhood, family,

education, social background and networks etc.), entry into politics (career, political membership

and dynamics, political orientations and initial motivations),

orientations and value system (regime preferences, opinions on elites, attitudes toward democratic ideals and practices, decision-making practices, etc.).

General overview of interviewees' profiles

50 interviewees 11 interviewees were between 30-40 years old 19 respondents were 40-50 years old10 respondents were between 50-60 years old10 respondents were over 60 years old.

General overview of interviewees' profiles

• 21 interviewees were from Armenian Republican Party (ARP), • 7 represented Heritage party (HP), • 3 were from Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP), • 3 from Armenian Revolutionary Federation

"Dashnaktsiutyun" (ARFD), • 3 from Armenian National Congress (ANC), • 3 were non partisan, while the rest of the

respondents were members of other political parties.

The Role of Family

One respondent noted that his family played a major role in the formation of his personality;

the main role belongs to the family when growing up as a true Armenian, while the family

has a little role in political activity.

Respondent`s education • 42 respondents received a higher education• 7 respondents had postgraduate• 1 respondent had middle level education

Religion and beliefs

• 80 percent identified themselves as followers of Armenian Apostolic Church• 18 percent of the interviewees said that they

were Christians, but they were disappointed of the Armenian Apostolic Church for various reasons• 1 respondent said that he is an atheist

Who and what inspires political elite? Family Stories about Armenian Genocide King Tigran the Great and Pap,Garegin NjdehFormer Prime Ministers Vazgen Sargsyan and

Andranik MargaryanFormer President Levon Ter Petrosyan and

curent incumbent Serzh Sargsyan Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchil

The patterns of political elite recruitment

•Karabagh movement as key point for entering into politics•Party membership as a key point

Party loyalty vs. constituency loyalty

The disagreements among elite members over the type of government and electoral system may create obstacles for transition and questions about the legitimacy of the emerging democratic government. Such an disagreement about core procedures necessary for producing democracy may not only leave the transition incomplete, but also postpone any consolidation of democracy.

(Linz & Stepan, 1996)

Motivations and values systems of the political elite

Freedom and justiceFamily and motherland

"Motherland", "nation", "order", "morality" and "security" Vs

"statehood'', "democracy", "rule of law", "freedom"

The elite was described negatively by opposition"there is no elite in Armenia because the main prerequisite for having an elite

is to have principles, but nowadays ruling class does not have any"

Conclusions

Armenia's current political elite is growingly becoming more disunited as defined by Higley and Burton (2006)

The competition among various elite groups often considered as a "matter of life and death"

The difficulties of creating “system of mutual security"