• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
14.04.2011

ARMENIANS OF TBILISI: NEW REALITIES

   

Tamara Vardanyan

T.Vardanyan - Expert at “Noravank” Foundation

The efforts of the current Georgian authorities directed to the nation building, gradually form new realities at once on three levels; firstly on regional level, secondly, for Georgia itself in its aspirations and prospects of turning into an nation state and, finally, in the context of the interests of the Armenians in Georgia, their prospects for national self-preservation.

Since the beginning of the 20th century in the multi-national Georgia the project of nation state building has been implemented consequently1. The success of this project supposes the shift of all the mechanisms of country management to the ethnic Georgians and thus, final exclusion of the ethnic minorities from the system of the state management. It is obvious that such a policy contradicts to the principles of democracy and strikes at the rights of the ethnic minorities living in the country. Meanwhile, the Armenians in Georgia has been a state-forming nation, which has lived and worked on that soil for centuries.

The incumbent president of Georgia M. Saakashvili is also aimed at the implementation of the project of the Georgian nation state creation and he manages to do a lot due to his consistency, vigour, and tangible support of both the West and most of the population. In the process of nation state building M. Saakashvili implements not the “hard” power like one of his forerunners, Z.Gamsakhurdia did, but a “soft” power directed to acquiring long-term results. The policy of M.Saakashvili in regard to the national minorities has already brought to the situation when not only rights but also the expectations and ambitions of the ethnic minorities are restricted by written and unwritten laws.

Even over the soviet period Armenians in Georgia knew that the shortest way for self-realization and successful promotion track was the renunciation of the Armenian surnames and adding instead Georgian endings. And after that full Georgification is not far off. And today’s “designers” of the Georgian nation state not only widely use the refinements and tuned mechanisms of Georification of the ethnic minorities they inherited from the past but at the same time they acquired more modern skills, which stimulate the assimilation of non-ethnic Georgians. Using of refined mechanisms and on the first sight objective tendencies for assimilation allows official Tbilisi to avoid criticism from abroad and to look rather democratic. E.g. the Armenians are blamed in closure of the Armenian schools in Tbilisi; due to reasons “unknown” only to official Tbilisi they do not want to study in the Armenian schools. Meanwhile, the true causes are concealed.

Everybody knows that M. Saakashvili managed to implement a number of important reforms in the country – modernization of the road police, considerable restriction of corruption, tangible improvement and liberalization of the investment field, development of tourism and etc. All the aforementioned changes caused a new situation, which will be considered in this article within the scope of the interests of the Armenians in Georgia.

Economic life

In the final part of the field study carried out in 2006 we mentioned the following: “There are almost no Armenians among the oligarchy formed over the period of the independence of Georgia. Even if there are Armenians, they are not known to the local Armenians (even to its active segment)”2. Thus, if over the period of formation of the capitalistic relations (the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries) Tiflis was mostly Armenian city with an Armenian population, with high social status of the Armenians and strong Armenian capital, on a new stage of the development of market relations (the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries) quite different realities have been formed. After the collapse of the USSR Armenian capital could not be formed in the capital of Georgia and the active and economically prospective segment of the Armenians from Tbilisi migrated from the country in large numbers.

Nevertheless, over the recent 2-3 years a number of tendencies, which caused a necessity to overview previously fixed realities, were observed.

Today the financial and investment field in Georgia has considerably improved and became rather attractive (here we mainly speak about small and medium size business) for foreign investors (including Armenians). Due to the reforms carried out in recent years, a part of the Armenian businessmen initiated the process of capital transfer from Armenia to Georgia. Thus, according to the official data for 2010, 103 Armenian companies were reregistered in Georgia; meanwhile unofficial sources speak about 4 thousand Armenian companies, which were registered in Georgia3. Even if those numbers are overrated, nevertheless, such a tendency is obvious. In a consequence of such a process gradually Armenian capital is being formed in Georgia. A vivid and material evidence of that is the Union of the Armenian businessmen of Georgia which has been established recently.

If we try to take into consideration the historical experience we shall have to turn firstly to the similar tendencies, which took place at the end of 19th century in Transcaucasia and thus to forecast the developments. After the Emancipation reform of 1861 in the Russian Empire capitalism was intensively developing. And then too Armenian wealthy and enterprising circles were disposed to set rather in prospering from the economic and cultural point of view Tiflis, which was the center of the Caucasus, than in Yerevan, Aleksandrapol or Echmiadzin. Strengthening of the Armenian capital in Tiflis at the end of the 19th and beginning of 20th centuries brought to the revival of social life of the Armenians of Tiflis as well as to the prosperity of the Armenian cultural and political life in general. On the other hand those developments made Tiflis a flourishing, attractive city, a true capital of Transcaucasia.

Alongside with the consolidation of the positions of the Armenians, a serious discontent had aroused among local Georgians, especially among the nationalist intelligentsia of those times. In those times, e.g. “Iveria” newspaper wrote in the article devoted to the Armenians: “In what plane is Tiflis Armenian city – by its geographic location, territorial right or by any other state or international right? Where are the Armenians and Armenia and where is Tiflis? We are still to clarify whether the houses bought by them really belong to them or not. But Tiflis is on the territory of Georgia… Here the Armenian does not dare utter a word… here nothing belongs to the Armenian”4 (Underlined by T.V.). But if we consider that situation in the aspect of the all-Armenian interests, it was correctly evaluated and rather clearly formulated by diplomatic representative of the First Republic of Armenia in Georgia Arshak Jamalyan who wrote: “At the behest of new rulers Georgia turning into an administrative, trade and civilizational centre of Transcaucasia, alongside with Russians and representatives of other nationalities has drawn a considerable number of the Armenians too. We know that Armenia had suffered a lot from this, thus being deprived of working hands and vigilant and creative element (underlined by T.M.). But we do not know how inopportune that was for Georgia, as the Armenians in Georgia, never pursuing national or political interests urged a huge impulse to its prosperity. Just think what would had been the current condition of Tiflis given to the Georgians but for the Armenian who had his creative hand in it…”5.

Thus, formation and strengthening of the Armenian capital in Tiflis since the second half of the 19th century on the one hand revived cultural and social life of the local Armenians and on the other hand it deprived Erivan province of enterprising and creative national potential.

So, one may state, that the modern tendencies of the transfer of a part of the Armenian capital from Armenia to Georgia on the one hand may revive the life of the Armenian community in Tbilisi and on the other hand this process will undoubtedly affect the development of the Republic of Armenia, as this time the progress and flourishing of Georgia will take place at the expense of Armenia.

Social life

In theory the financial and economic life of the national minority in one country or another, alongside with the consolidation of its social positions, inevitably creates grounds for stirring up the social life, stimulates cultural and spiritual development. Such a scenario is probable in case with the Armenians from Tbilisi under the gradual formation of the Armenian capital in Georgia.

Thus, e.g. this year during the celebration of Holy Christmas in the yard of the Armenian St. Gevorg church among those who came you could see also the local Armenian businessmen who stood by the spiritual leader of the Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Georgia. This fact inspires some hopes on the possible cooperation between the newly formed Armenian economic elite and national spiritual centre. The presence of the Armenian business circles speaks to the fact that they are not estranged from the Armenian national church and social life of the local Armenians; it is also inspiring fact as the segment, which possesses financial and economic potentia,l has all the possibilities for cooperation in resolving long-urgent problems of the local Armenians.

Besides, if we compare the celebrations of Holy Christmas in Tbilisi, this year a considerable stirring up of the activity of both the Armenian Church and local Armenians can be observed. Here we should mention that previously most of the Armenians in Tbilisi celebrated Christmas on January 7th, i.e. with the adherents of the Georgian Orthodox Church. In previous years when we talked to the local Armenians, very often it turned out that they did not even know that the Armenian Apostolic Church is an independent spiritual institution and according to the Armenian Church calendar Holy Christmas is celebrated on January 6th. The most widespread answer to the question: “Why do you celebrate on January 7th and not 6th?” was: “In Yerevan you celebrate it on January 6th, and we celebrate on January 7th, and it has always been like that”6.

Over the recent years the Georgian Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church initiated a number of measures, in order to inform the local Armenians and to involve them in the spiritual life of the community. Church calendars, brochures have been created and disseminated; “Norashen” magazine is issued. And even last year the progress was evident: very often you could hear from the local Armenians the opinion that from now they were going to celebrate the Church fetes only in accordance with the calendar of the Armenian Apostolic Church and not with the adherents of the Georgian Orthodox Church. Those conversations were especially activated after the building of the Georgian Orthodox church Sameba (Holy Trinity) in the Armenian Havlabar quarter – this fact was accepted by the local Armenians in different ways. E.g. among them the conversations were spread that it is non-licet for the true Armenian to go to the other church.

“Soft” policy of M. Saakashvili

This year the celebrations of Holy Christmas were also marked by another important event: for the first time high-ranking Georgian officials were present and congratulated the Armenians of Georgia. Thus, the president M. Saakashvili accompanied by the mayor G. Ugulava visited Armenian St, Echmiadzin church in Havlabar where the Armenians of Tbilisi gathered. And the mayor on the same day visited Armenian St. Gevorg Church and wished the Armenians who gathered there Merry Christmas.

In his appeal to the audience president mentioned: “We shall never forget the contribution the Armenians made to the economic and cultural life of Georgia and that the Armenians with the arms fought for the independence and freedom of our country”7.

The president also paid obeisance to the head of the Georgian Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church which proves at least the apparent aspiration of the Georgian authorities to establish good relations with the Armenian Church. Saakashvili particularly said: “I highly appreciate the activity of Bishop Vazgen and his contribution to the spiritual life of our citizens as well as to the development of the relations of our two nations. It is rare phenomenon when two states are connected with the centuries-long friendship, affinity and brotherhood. They overcame the difficulties and rejoiced together. Such relations between the Armenians and Georgians are based not only on the bitterness and rejoice of the past, but also on the present and future”8. Such a respect deeply touched local Armenians and in response the Head of the Dioceses of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Georgia, Bishop Vazgen Mirzakhanyan compared president Mikhail Saakashvili with David Agmashenebeli (David the Builder). He particularly said: “For me it is great honour that on such an important day president of Georgia visited our church, just like David Agmashenebeli. This expresses your attitude and respect. David Agmashenebeli visited both Muslim and Christian prayer houses and I am happy that this tradition continues”9. But such a step by the Georgian authorities seemed to be necessary especially after the scandalous statement made by the Deputy Minister of Reintegration of Georgia E. Tevdoradze that the Armenian Apostolic church in Tbilisi is the branch of Echmiadzin and Georgia will never give a status and register Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Georgia. After that incident tension aroused in the relations between the Armenian and Georgia churches and Echmiadzin expressed sharp criticism of the Deputy Minister, Thus, in this way M. Saakashvili with his respect tended to make amends for the tension and at the same time to support his authority among the Armenians.

And if we consider this visit in the perception of the local Armenians, for them this has become a signal that the Georgian authorities are not going to put obstacles in the way of the Armenians of Georgia who wants to follow their spiritual and cultural tradition and to arrange their social, cultural and spiritual life round their national church.

Thus the essence of the “soft” and flexible policy of M. Saakashvili is as follows: on the one hand he carries out reforms and liberalization of the general civil atmosphere in the country, in a consequence of which the civil self-consciousness among the common citizens of Georgia (including Armenians) is becoming stronger and for the ethnic minorities this happens to the prejudice of the national self-consciousness. Under such circumstances a person firstly identifies himself a citizen of that country and ethnic belonging is sidelined. At the same time Saakshvili manages to provide the demonstrative side in the form of his statements and respect when he speaks about the equality and brotherhood of all the citizens of Georgia, regardless of their nationality. Against this background, according to the official Tbilisi, it should have been quite “logical” that before our eyes the Armenian schools in Tbilisi are being closed (thus if in 2006 there were 8 Armenian schools in the city, now their number has shrunk to 2); the hours of teaching Armenian in Javakhq are also cut; no official status is given to the Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Georgia; Armenian churches are not returned to their true owner and etc. Such a flexibility of Saakashvili in home affairs is successfully combined with the aims of Georgification of the national minorities and, finally, construction of the nation state.

Conclusion

The historical experience of the Armenian-Georgian relations at the end f the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th centuries, the history of intolerance of the Georgian nationalism and constant perception of the Armenians as their competitors, as well as the current policy of the Georgian authorities directed to weakening of the role and place of the Armenian language, closing of the Armenian schools and etc, suggest that the social life of the local Armenians will be restricted to the participation in the fetes, involvement of the Armenian children in the song and dance ensembles, various hobby groups and etc. Of course this is very important because it allows preserving definite strata of the Armenian self-consciousness at least among those who will be involved in that activity. But the aforementioned spheres have no mass character, unlike comprehensive schools. The Armenian business circles seem to be able to promote the revival of the life of the Armenian community but such a process will not be prolonged as the Armenian business segment after completing its mission – stimulating economic development of Georgia – will be gradually excluded from Georgia, because the presence of economically strong Armenian element does not fit in the framework of the Georgian national project.

At the same time possible and demonstrative revival of the social life of the Armenians in Tbilisi will provide Georgia with high international rating and image of seemingly democratic country.

What prospects do the local Armenians have taking into consideration the aforementioned tendencies? Alongside with the formation of the Georgian statehood, Armenians of Georgia (and here we can speak not only about the Armenians from the capital but also Armenians from Javakhq) will be disposed to the integration in the civil life of the country rather that to the emigration and not to mention the repatriation (what repatriation can we speak about when the Armenian from Tbilisi sees that Armenian businessman transfers his business from Armenia to Georgia). And practice come to prove that under the integration to the civil life of other country, consolidation of the civil identity alongside with the weakening or disappearance of the idea of repatriation, assimilative processes acquire irreversible character.

1For details see: Т.Варданян, «Грузия: идентичность в политических программах и действии», #3, журнал НОФ «Нораванк» «21-ый ВЕК», сс. 87-110; in Russian: #3, «21-ый век», сс. 48-69; in English.: #1, “21st Century”. 57-77, 2010.

2Т. Варданян, Армянская община Тифлиса: новые вызовы, старые проблемы, «21-ый ВЕК», НОФ «Нораванк», pp. 94-128, а также http://noravank.am/arm/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=2393&sphrase_id=4015

3http://regnum.ru/news/fd-abroad/armenia/1372814.html

4«Иверия» об армянах в Тифлисе. Перевод с груз. редакцией «Кавказа», Кавказ, Тифлис, 1897, но. 86.

5А.Джамалян, Армяно-грузинский вопрос, «Айреник», Бостон, 1928, N6, с. 77-78.

6We spoke about it in one of our interviews: http://bagin.info/default.asp?Lang=_Am&NewsID=2704&SectionID=0&Date=04/23/2009&PagePosition=1, 23.04.2009։

7http://news.am/arm/news/43825.html

8Ibid.

9http://kavkaz.ge/2011/01/07/episkop-armyanskoj-cerkvi-sravnil-prezidenta-gruzii-s-davidom-agmashenebeli/

“Globus National Security”, issue 2, 2011

Return
Another materials of author