FETISH OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE SAD REALITY OF ARMENIA
In the political life of Armenia, the same slogans - independence, sovereignty, freedom - have been repeated for more than three decades. Yet when we try to understand the reality behind them, a much more complex and contradictory picture emerges.
Independence is indeed a value. However, it cannot exist merely as a slogan. A country’s real strength is measured not by rhetoric but by industry, jobs, and the development of agriculture, science, and culture.
A comparison of Armenia’s economic structure in different periods shows that attractive words have often replaced a coherent state policy.
During the Soviet Union era, Armenia was a small republic, yet in terms of industrial potential, it was considered one of the most developed regions of the Union. The republic developed high-technology sectors such as electronics, machine building, the chemical industry, machine-tool production, and radio engineering. Dozens of large factories and plants employed hundreds of thousands of people, and their products were sold throughout the Soviet Union — an enormous market.
That system created an industrial environment in which Armenia was not merely a consumer but a producer. The republic participated in a vast economic chain, supplying equipment, machinery, and industrial products.
Agriculture was also organized as a large-scale system. Collective farms ensured the production of grapes, fruit, wine, Armenian cognac, and livestock. Farmers were not left alone to deal with their problems: the state provided machinery, organized production, and guaranteed a market for sales.
All this ensured almost universal employment - something that today seems more like a memory of the past. People worked, families lived in relatively stable social conditions, and the state played a tangible role in organizing the economy.
In the first years of independence, Armenia faced severe trials: war, blockade, and an energy crisis. At the same time, another process was unfolding — one that is rarely discussed today — the mass erosion of the country’s industrial potential.
Factories were shut down or sold for a fraction of their value. Industrial systems were dismantled, and tens of thousands of specialists left the country in a wave of emigration that continues to this day.
A significant part of the political forces that came to power under the banner of independence began to view the country not as an instrument of national development but as an object for the division of property. Economic policy often turned into a chaotic process of privatization, short-term gain, and the disorganization of state governance.
In this long process of erosion, one period can be identified when the economy began to recover gradually after the collapse. That period corresponds to the presidency of Robert Kocharyan, the second president of Armenia. During those years, several important economic and infrastructural programs were implemented, certain branches of industry were revived, and the economy began to demonstrate sustainable growth.
However, that stage of recovery did not evolve into a long-term national strategy. Under the third president, Serzh Sargsyan, the economy once again began to serve the interests of a narrow circle within the ruling elite.
Today, Armenia’s economic structure has changed significantly. The industrial sector has shrunk, agriculture largely relies on small private farms, and a significant share of the economy has shifted toward the service sector - trade, finance, and tourism.
In other words, the country that once produced machinery and industrial equipment now has to import them.
These changes have also affected cultural life. During the Soviet period, prominent cultural figures such as Aram Khachaturian, Martiros Saryan, Paruyr Sevak, and Hovhannes Shiraz were creating and developing the country’s cultural sphere.
Their works are still regarded as an important part of Armenian cultural heritage.
At that time, the cultural sector was largely supported by the state. Film studios, theaters, and other institutions operated with public funding, allowing artists to create without constant pressure from the market.
Today, the cultural sphere functions predominantly under market conditions. Popularity often goes to those artists who are able to attract larger audiences through concerts, television, or the internet - frequently with shallow, tabloid-style videos, sensational performances, and entertainment designed more for spectacle than substance.
All this demonstrates that the economic and cultural systems in Armenia have been built on fundamentally different principles in different periods. During the Soviet era, there was a strong industrial base and a state-supported cultural environment, whereas in today’s “independent” Armenia, the market mechanism has largely become the dominant force.
An important conclusion follows from this.
Independence cannot be reduced to a populist slogan. It has real value only when it enables the creation of industry and jobs, supports the development of science, preserves culture, and ensures national security.
Yet over the past three decades, a particular political stratum has emerged in the country that continues to exist by exploiting this empty idea. For many of its representatives, independence has been transformed into a political idol rather than a foundation for development. It has become a sacred word capable of justifying any mistake, any defeat, and even crimes against the people and the state.
A state governed by populist slogans instead of a coherent strategy has no future.
