By Z. S. Andrew Demirdjian
About 2,500 years ago, a new civilization began in Greece. As you know, the ancient Greeks produced many fine buildings, cities, plays, music, philosophies, sciences and a system of government that gave people a say in how their state was run, namely democracy.
As a result, Athens became the biggest and richest city-state in ancient Greece. Of all the glorious contributions, democracy is the most significant and enduring concept in the minds and hearts of justice- and equality-loving people.
Today, when matters pertain to a departure from democracy, we tend to go back to the place of origin of the concept and practice of democracy to remind ourselves if the shift from it is advisable.
During the Golden Age of Athens from 479 to 431, Pericles, the most powerful man in Athenian politics, indirectly defined democracy for the future generations. Thus, the democratic government of Athens would serve as a model for future civilizations.
As a leader of Athens, Pericles gave a speech at a funeral of a fallen solider during the war with Sparta. In his speech, he said of Athens:“Our constitution favors the many instead of the few. That is why it is called a democracy. If we look at the laws, we see they give equal justice to all…”
The above quotation is so simple and yet packed with the compelling idea that democracy “favors the many instead of the few.” The antonym of democracy is the rule of “the few.” On a continuum, we have on one end democracy (people power) and on the opposite end autocracy or oligarchy (individual power). When individuals get powerful, research evidence indicates that they get corrupt by depriving people to make decisions. People-based governance becomes dictator-based Machiavellism.
Therefore, whenever there is a move for departure from the “rule of the many” to the “rule of the few,” the critical question is, What the motive is behind the paradigm shift? Naturally, during emergencies like war, it would be more efficient to let some of our leaders make the important decisions. However, during peace time, we have the luxury of time to practice democratic principles.
Since the motive behind the change for the governance of Ararat Home of Los Angeles, Inc. (Ararat Home) is not clear whether it is for the benefit of the membership at large or just for a few individuals forming an oligarchic clan, the intention of the move could be construed as a takeover of a very successful American Armenian organization since its inception in 1949.
As a member of the Armenian Diaspora, and as a member of the Ararat Home, I am deeply concerned about the proposed change(s) to the By-Laws of the constitution to be voted on Sunday, March 29, 2020.
Do we continue living in modern times or revert to the dark days of medieval times where the power of the people centered in the hands of a few, egocentric individuals? Thank you for appreciating my arguments for democratic- as opposed to oligarchic-method of running of our iconic Ararat Home of Los Angeles.
My vote is NO on proposed changes to the Ararat Home By-Laws.