3.1. From Social Cohesion to Discord

At the stage of the demise of Soviet-type socialism, Armenian society succeeded in achieving a high level of cohesion, since an absolute majority of the people unambiguously shared the idea of reuniting Nagorno Karabagh with Armenia, and the necessity of protecting Armenians residing in Azerbaijan from violence. Fortified by the existence of an external threat, social cohesion enabled Armenian society to overcome the hardships of the Karabagh conflict, the transportation blockade, and the concurrently occurring radical changes in social relations. Among the social achievements of cohesion should be mentioned the prevention of an acute clash of interests between the new and old elite which inevitably would have broken out unless the latter, taking into account the threat to national interests, withdrew itself and conceded power to the new elite and the right to make important political decisions.

After the cease-fire agreement on the territory of the Karabagh conflict and the commencement of political negotiations, the significance of ethno-social and socio-psychological integrators decreased. Factors inhibiting integration emerged, and their impact ultimately led to the weakening of internal social cooperation and accord.

3.1.1. Factors of Discord

Among the most significant factors of discord have been and still are the following: the lack of a unified national economic strategy, the weakness of internal cooperation and economic ties, the prevalence of external economic ties over the internal, the transition of economic entities to self-sufficiency, and the lack of a sustainable and efficient inter-sectoral and intrasectoral division of labor of economic life.

Economic disintegration proceeded in parallel to the monopolization of power, and insufficient division among its branches. The process of separation of powers, which started in 1991, was suspended already in 1994 under the pretext of maintaining stability. The previously used system of checks and balances was replaced with oppression which manifested itself in the prohibition of the Dashnak party and intolerance towards political opponents. The tradition of monopolistic power proved stronger than the yet fragile democratic culture, a result of which was the retreat to authoritarian rule with a single center of power. This development was aggravated further by the fact that a number of democratic innovations were more motivated by the desire of the authorities to satisfy the democratization expectations of the international community rather than by real or urgent internal needs.

In 1998 the authoritarian regime slackened; the ban on the Dashnak party activities was lifted, a certain level of tolerance towards political opposition appeared, and the number of centers of power multiplied. However, these positive changes in Armenia did not result in the growth of social solidarity. Firstly, the Karabagh conflict preserves the predominance of enforcement structures and hinders the formation of coordination mechanisms between various centers of power. The lack of consensus in relation to the legitimate goals and means of political action also inhibits the achievement of effective coordination on a social level. Political decisions are not based on the preferences of the public and weakly correlate with the opinions expressed during political debate. The basic principle of political decision-making is still "don't bother us". According to the RA Prime Minister's confession, made in a televised speech, June 10, 1999, `…. no government has so far succeeded in making the people of Armenia a participant in the changes.' In turn, the people have no due trust, not only in the implemented changes, but also in the authorities themselves who are still incapable of overcoming the growing impoverishment of the country and making a leap to development. Even those strata, which have benefited from the changes, are still distrustful of them. This distrust is fed by the weakness of laws, lack of guarantees for private property, corruption in high circles of the management system, and the prevalence of the `all-permissiveness' system. Differences in the level of acceptance or rejection of new values also impact the level of social cohesion in society (Box 3.1).

Box 3.1.Value Bases of Social Cohesion and Cooperation The level of commitment to society's values is an important basis for social cohesion. From this point of view, conclusions are rather pessimistic in Armenia. Already today strong confrontation between the values of different generations is clearly visible as is the tendency toward social and value disorientation. Additionally, values, norms and principles are rejected by society. Altogether, these trends form an unfavorable basis for social cohesion. The old values, i.e. equality, social justice, honesty, are being replaced with new ones, dictated by market economy requirements. However, the adoption of these values is largely complicated due to the absence of any mechanism for strengthening them. Only a small portion of the population has entirely accepted the new value system, displaying adequate behavior (in line with the new system). So far, the number of social groups, which actively reject the new values, is large. They remain in an inner conflict and alienate themselves from the very society, which proposes a radical value change for them.

3.1.2. Differences in the Expectations of Various Social Groups

The degree of society's social cohesiveness remains insufficiently low also due to the absence of an efficient mechanism for coordinating the interests of social groups. The lack of a well-written law on elections and the infringement on the citizen's active and passive election rights do not allow Armenian society to seriously broaden the circle of involvement of various social groups and secure the participation of the representatives of all social groups in the decision-making process. It suffices to say that women account just for 3% of the new National Assembly (NA).

The lack of mechanisms required to achieve consensus and the dearth of historical traditions, first and foremost hinders the quest of discharging tensions between employers and employees. The employer-employee conflict in Armenia is a new phenomenon, manifesting itself in quite peculiar forms not only because of hidden unemployment and hidden employment, but also due to lack of a serious legal basis for the protection of employees' rights. Currently, employer-employee relations are regulated by the Soviet labor code, which, for resolving labor disputes, is obsolete. The situation is further aggravated by the inaction of trade unions (Box 3.2).

Box 3.2. Trade Unions After the proclamation of independence, the Armenian trade unions found themselves in deep crisis, having lost state sponsorship, their ideological function, incomes and part of their property (recreational facilities, health resorts, guest houses, sports complexes, stadiums, etc.) Suspending operations at most of enterprises and mass unemployment undercut the social base of this once enormous organization. Nowadays, more than 190,000 unemployed, workers on a long-term forced administrative leave, farmers who do not pin any hope on trade unions as protectors of their rights, as well as property owners, are no longer trade union members. Many have not reactivated their membership in the primary trade union bodies after the resumption of their activities. Inability on the part of trade unions to introduce qualitative changes in the methods of operation resulted in limiting and devaluating their capacity. The new independent trade unions, which so far function in the form of NGOs protecting the rights of employees (unions of traders, producers, drivers), are still in the process of formation. Also, strike committees have emerged which use strikes as leverage to force the authorities to satisfy the employees' economic demands in various spheres. To become genuine trade unions, the newly established organizations must specify their functions and truly protect the employees' rights, find sources of existence, and reject forms of activities not representative of their functions. Social Contract can serve as a helpful mechanism for relieving tensions between the interests, expectations and claims of various socio-economic groups. In 1994 a successful attempt to sign a social contract was made in Armenia. As a result of talks between government representatives and trade union workers, a Memorandum of Intentions was signed in which the parties expressed their readiness to respect mutual interests and to solve all acute problems at the negotiation table. The conclusion of the contract was professionally supported by the Chair of Sociology at Yerevan State University (YSU). Unfortunately, the mechanism for the implementation of these intentions has not yet been determined.