Armenian opposition accuses ruling party of ‘fascism’

The dispute began during parliament’s Tuesday discussion of a government proposal to change the oath taken by ministers.

The Justice Ministry had proposed replacing the current wording, under which officials swear an oath ‘for the implementation of national goals and the strengthening of the homeland’, with an oath ‘for the perpetuation, independence, sovereignty, and development of the Republic of Armenia’.

Justice Minister Srbuhi Galyan claimed it was necessary as the current wording does not fully reflect key elements of state continuity, its strengthening and development.

The opposition has criticised the proposal, arguing Civil Contract has a problem with references to the ‘national goals’ and ‘homeland’. The ruling party has instead argued that Armenia itself constitutes the homeland, echoing Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s Real Armenia ideology: which insists Armenians must accept modern Armenia within its current borders.

The debate escalated after Civil Contract MP Arman Yeghoyan said that the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (the ARF, also known informally as Dashnaks) party and its ideology should be ‘uprooted from Armenian political thought’, which was followed by applause in his support.

The ARF is a core part of the opposition Armenia Alliance faction, led by former President Robert Kocharyan. It is the smallest faction in Armenia’s new parliament. The party was founded in 1890 and is one of the country’s oldest political parties. Known for its nationalist ideology, it led efforts to establish the First Republic of Armenia in 1918 and was the ruling party throughout the republic’s existence until Sovietisation in 1920. The party was subsequently banned under Soviet rule, before re-emerging in 1990.

Yeghoyan went on to say that MP Christine Vardanyan ‘should be the last ARF member of Armenian political thought’.

‘This is a fundamental prerequisite for the enduring existence, independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Armenia’, he said.

‘The disasters that this party and its ideology have brought upon our state are disasters that Armenia, the Republic of Armenia, and the Armenian people have never faced in their history as they did during this party’s rule. A disastrous, conflict-generating party that has infected the entire political thought and continues to do so to this day’, Yeghoyan said in reference to the ARF.

His remarks prompted an angry response from opposition MPs and a back-and-forth exchange.

Vardanyan accused Yeghoyan of making a ‘fascist speech’ and compared the ruling party to the Young Turks – who orchestrated and executed the Armenian Genocide – and the Bolsheviks, who established the Soviet Union. She coined a name for Civil Contract, combining these two groups — Young Bolsheviks.

Vardanyan accused the ruling party of having ‘the same targets as the Young Turks and the same toolkit as Bolshevik thinking’, and added: ‘Just as the Turks wanted to leave one Armenian in the world, you repeated exactly the same thing. But just as the Turks failed to achieve this in their programme, you will fail to achieve it too’.

The comments were a reference to words that have been attributed to Talaat Pasha, one of the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide, who allegedly said, ‘we want to leave behind one Armenian, and only in a museum’.

During the same session, Parliamentary Speaker Ruben Rubinyan criticized Yeghoyan’s tone, saying that ‘because objectively it could have sounded overly aggressive’, while backing the substance of his remarks.

‘It could have been phrased differently. Not, for example, that Ms Vardanyan should be the last ARF member, but that Ms Vardanyan should be the last ARF member who finally accepts the concept of the Real Armenia and bids farewell to ARF ideas that are harmful to Armenia, for example. But she could also be the first [to do so]’, Rubinyan added.