Fact daily writes:
When political processes are not dominated by state or national interests, but by personal insults, personal hatred, the desire to retaliate against political opponents or personal revenge, the political system begins to lose its democratic character.
In such a situation, politics turns into a continuation of personal relationships, and state institutions into tools for serving individual conflicts. In political science, this phenomenon is often characterized as the personalization of politics or personalized power, one of the extreme manifestations of which is the dominance of the logic of personal revenge in political processes.
In that case, the levers of state power begin to be used not so much to protect public order or ensure the rule of law, but to suppress political opponents, isolate former competitors, undermine their reputation or push them out of the political arena. When the entire logic of state administration begins to be built on the "co-opinion-enemy" division, all actions of the government are perceived by a significant part of society not as state policy, but as a continuation of personal revenge.
Armenia has become a bright example of such a system in recent years. The problem is that since the change of power in 2018, we are witnessing such manifestations, when there are grievances against one person and due to revenge, persecutions begin against various political forces, figures, including former presidents, representatives of major political forces and structures of great importance in public life, in this case, representatives of the Church. The most dangerous aspect of this phenomenon is that it is gradually transforming the entire state. the institutional structure.
If in a legal state, state bodies serve the law, then under the logic of personal revenge, the law gradually begins to serve political goals. This change often does not happen overnight, but through a gradual process, when various state institutions lose their independence and are increasingly perceived as mechanisms for implementing the will of political power (more specifically, one person).
In the beginning, criminal cases were carried out in the context of personal revenge and personal whims, an attempt was made to show that they were the "decisions" of the law enforcement system, or that the person holding the position of the country's prime minister had nothing to do with them, in short, at least they were throwing forms, even if the number of people who believed in them was not large, and the overwhelming majority of these cases were destroyed "halfway". Now the author of the revenge is openly and openly announcing that he will "kill" those who say "bitter to his butter", will imprison and punish them. Plainly says he threatens. Moreover, in some cases it even dictates specific punishments (say, until the end of other elections). And immediately after his statements, the next "series" of terror begins. The economic component of political persecution caused by personal motives is also worthy of attention. When businessmen begin to assume that their economic security depends on political positions or relations with the authorities, the investment environment becomes unpredictable. Regardless of the legal assessment of each individual case, it is more important for the economy to have a predictable and level playing field. If a public perception is formed that supervisory or administrative tools can be used in the political context as well, then trust in the business environment decreases. The contradictions arising around the activities of local self-government bodies can also be observed in this field, when legal or administrative actions are carried out against opposition community leaders "on the basis" of serving the whims of one person and the political force led by him. And that is the reason why in a number of cases special cases are initiated against a number of elected community heads so that they cannot hold office. Moreover, then everything is done to hold new elections. Moreover, all of this is done openly again, as, for example, it was recently announced about the desire to hold new elections in Gyumri, when the people there recently rejected the Communist Party and formed their own government. As we have already mentioned, the most dangerous consequence of the logic of personal revenge, however, does not concern individual politicians, but the entire law enforcement system. The mission of law enforcement agencies is to ensure the rule of law. If such an idea is formed in the society that these structures are involved in political struggle or are subject to political influences, then one of the foundations of statehood is endangered. The authority of the law enforcement system is built exclusively on its independence and impartiality. Restoring the loss of that authority is an extremely difficult process. The experience of democratic countries shows that there is a real balance mechanism between the authorities and the judiciary in established state systems. If necessary, independent courts can recognize the decisions of the executive power as unconstitutional or illegal, and law enforcement agencies are obliged to be guided not by political expediency, but exclusively by the law. It is this institutional independence that prevents the concentration of state power around one political center and ensures the balance between the branches of government. In recent years, a number of international structures have addressed issues related to the judicial system, independence of law enforcement agencies, judicial reforms and institutional stability in Armenia in their reports, emphasizing that the need for continuous reforms in these areas remains relevant. However, under the name of reforms, we see a regression, when the law enforcement system has become a tool for revenge. The predominance of personal insults in politics is also dangerous from the point of view of public psychology. When the government builds its policy with the "ideology" of hatred, enmity, destruction, that atmosphere is transmitted to the society as well. Citizens begin to perceive each other not as fellow citizens with different political views, but as representatives of opposite camps. Such polarization weakens national solidarity and limits the possibilities of political dialogue. It is important to consider that the effectiveness of state institutions depends not only on laws, but also on political culture. If the political culture is dominated by the logic of destroying a rival, taking revenge or maintaining power at any cost, even in the most illegal way, then even the most perfect legal system can hardly ensure democratic stability. It is no coincidence that in societies where the peaceful transfer of power, recognition of the legitimacy of the political opponent and respect for institutions are accepted, the state is more resistant to internal and external challenges.
