BY RAFFY ARDHALDJIAN
As Armenia confronts one of its most challenging periods since independence, the imperative for institutional renewal has never been more acute. In times of national crisis, renewal often requires the courage to reform—and history offers examples where such courage has paved the way for enduring stability. Seven historical cases illustrate how other nations have undertaken institutional transformation in response to existential challenges, demonstrating paths Armenia might consider as it seeks a sustainable future.
When Athens faced a crisis in 594 BCE, it appointed Solon with extraordinary powers to implement reform, recognizing that, sometimes, political cycles must give way to renewal. Solon succeeded not by imposing solutions, but by creating space for systemic change. Lesson for Armenia: Reform should empower citizens to actively shape institutions, not just adjust to imposed changes.
In 1717, the Mekhitarist Congregation, under pressure in Constantinople, strategically withdrew to Venice’s San Lazzaro island, preserving Armenian intellectual traditions and catalyzing a cultural renaissance. Lesson for Armenia: Long-term cultural and educational initiatives, especially with the diaspora, can strengthen Armenia’s identity and resilience.
Charles de Gaulle’s withdrawal to Britain in 1940 preserved French resistance against German forces. This strategic retreat maintained the continuity of French institutions and democratic values. Lesson for Armenia: In times of crisis, leaders should prioritize continuity and resilience to safeguard national interests.
After losing Karelia in 1940, Finland pursued a “strategic pause” to develop frameworks that safeguarded its sovereignty while managing relations with the Soviet Union. Lesson for Armenia: Armenia should build pragmatic frameworks that protect sovereignty without fostering hostility.
Singapore’s leadership, after its separation from Malaysia in 1965, transformed its institutions, turning a vulnerable city into a global hub. Lesson for Armenia: Armenia can focus on internal development, economic modernization, and institutional efficiency to increase regional influence.
Following its defeat in 1945, Japan reimagined its institutions while preserving cultural continuity, transforming its political structures through methodical reform. Lesson for Armenia: Armenia should integrate reforms with respect for its cultural heritage, building a modern governance framework rooted in its traditions.
In the 1980s, Britain’s Labour Party created a Reform Commission to modernize its outdated structures, enabling fundamental change without abandoning its principles. Lesson for Armenia: Armenian political parties should reflect on past failures and commit to inclusive reforms and unity, replacing blame with constructive action.
These diverse cases share a common thread: the recognition that national institutional renewal requires both courage and methodology. In each instance, success came not just from the decision to reform, but from developing systematic approaches to institutional transformation.
The art of institutional renewal lies not in copying specific solutions, but in understanding the principles that enabled successful transformations. These principles — strategic patience, systematic approach, and focus on institutional rather than personal solutions — sometimes offer wise guidance for contemporary national challenges.
Today, Armenia faces a convergence of challenges that echo aspects of all these historical moments. The loss of Artsakh has created new strategic imperatives, but beyond this immediate crisis lies a deeper challenge: Armenia’s political institutions and traditional patterns of political engagement have proven inadequate for addressing existential threats. The persistent cycle of finger-pointing, political infighting, and institutional stagnation threatens to paralyze necessary renewal at a moment when the nation can least afford it. The Treaty of Alexandropol (1920) stands as a stark reminder of how national institutional weakness and external factors can lead to national catastrophe, as I discussed in my previous article. Yet today’s political leadership, despite the monumental losses since 2020, continues to prioritize power preservation over institutional renewal.
Armenia’s geopolitical reality calls for institutions capable of sophisticated statecraft, yet the dominance of personality-driven politics and tactical maneuvers diverts attention from building robust institutions that can pursue strategic objectives across political cycles. The political elite’s reluctance to engage in serious introspection and their failure to reengage the broader stakeholders of Armenian society undermines the development of national capabilities. This is not merely a theoretical concern, but an urgent practical necessity—Armenia’s political thought and institutional behavior cannot afford to remain trapped in cycles of mutual recrimination and factional positioning. Appeals to national unity, while important, cannot substitute for the hard work of institutional renewal and political maturation.
While leadership changes often capture attention, they rarely address the deeper structural challenges that Armenia faces. The persistent political infighting and fragmentation within the nation underscore the need for a more profound shift—institutional renewal. Political cycles could give way to systemic changes that outlast any one leader or party, creating institutions capable of serving the nation’s long-term interests.
Drawing from these historical lessons — particularly Finland’s systematic approach to security planning and the Mekhitarist model of diaspora engagement — two illustrative cases of institutional reform highlight how new initiatives could enhance Armenia’s capabilities:
- National Security Council Development: Evolving the National Security Council into a stronger coordinating body, with permanent working groups that include experts from both the government and private sector, offers Armenia a more comprehensive and integrated approach to national security, strategic planning, and policy development. Such an institution could become a hub for addressing complex security and diplomatic challenges with a systematic, long-term perspective;
- Armenia-Diaspora Relations: Establishing an institution dedicated to Armenia-Diaspora relations could go beyond cultural programs and short-term initiatives, creating a more sustainable and mutually beneficial partnership. By incorporating Diaspora expertise and resources into Armenia’s national framework, this approach could foster enduring ties, strengthening Armenia while enriching the Diaspora’s connection to the homeland.
These cases illustrate how institutional reform in times of crisis may enhance Armenia’s capacity to move from reactive crisis management to proactive, long-term planning, advancing both national resilience and the Armenia-Diaspora relationship.
Like Singapore after separation, Finland after losing Karelia, or the Mekhitarists in their moment of crisis, Armenia has the potential to navigate complex relationships with larger powers while fundamentally reimagining its institutional frameworks and political culture. These historical examples demonstrate that genuine national renewal begins with native institutional reform—not with slogans, sheer reliance on foreign patrons or surface changes, but with profound reassessment of how political institutions think, operate, and serve national interests.
While no single organization in a small state can address these challenges alone, each successful institutional transformation can create stepping stones toward national renewal. Today’s focus remains stubbornly fixed on changing political actors, yet this cycle of leadership changes without institutional strengthening has proven inadequate. Equally important is evolving the ethos of Armenian political culture – moving from adversarial positioning to one that builds on common national consensus and encourages substantive dialogue. This doesn’t require universal agreement, but rather the cultivation of meaningful discourse beyond the limiting paradigm of ‘us versus them’.
This imperative for renewal extends to all of Armenia’s traditional institutions. Each must examine how it can transform from being part of the historical narrative to becoming an effective agent of national renewal. In this context, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, as one of the nation’s oldest political parties (1890) and the founding party of the First Republic, carries both the weight of history and the responsibility to adapt to contemporary challenges. This historical role calls for humility rather than presumption—the party represents one among many institutions facing the challenge of renewing itself to serve Armenia’s interests effectively. The upcoming World Congress in Winter 2025 presents a natural moment for such reflection.
Beyond the ARF, institutions across Armenia and the Diaspora face a similar imperative for reform and renewal, as the survival and prosperity of the Armenian people, both in the Republic and across the Diaspora, depends on their collective ability to transform and adapt.
History shows us that nations in crisis find their path forward through institutional renewal and new ideas. The question facing Armenia today isn’t about maintaining existing patterns or enabling change—it’s about recognizing those pivotal moments when institutional transformation becomes essential for national survival and renewal. In this light, the current crisis offers more than just challenges to overcome, but an opportunity to strengthen the institutional foundations necessary for the future of Armenia and its Diaspora.
