A debate that, unfortunately, never happened with Pashinyan
By Ara Toranian
His predecessors were not any better. However, Nikol Pashinyan’s communication is more of a monologue than a democratic dialogue.
His recent Diaspora tour is evidence of this. Coming to the “communities”, the Armenian Prime Minister did nothing to listen to them. He delivered his messages to a carefully selected audience, almost without a counter-speaker.
Representatives of one of the main organized forces of the Diaspora, the ARF Dashnaktsutyun, were carefully left out, an absence that facilitates the exercise. In these conditions, it is always easier to prosecute a political opponent.
Is there anyone in the government circle who dares to oppose the leader today? Although he has no intention or means to silence the opposition, Pashinyan absolutely dominates his entourage and his rank-and-file. And woe to him who shows even a little independence of thought or lack of enthusiasm (including the case of Hovik Aghazaryan). It is the time of the courtiers. Not of the currents….
It is this idea of power that dictates the organization of meetings with the Diaspora: no debate, no right to counter, just a voiced one-sided speech. Participants had to give up their phones and watches in advance, and refrain from taking any notes. Only the official government communication was allowed to inform about the event.
The “cherry on the cake” was the lack of translation in one part of the meeting. A mistake that was corrected only at the request of the author of these lines. As if it was natural that the invited Frenchmen should be fluent in Eastern Armenian. And as if Pashinyan himself only had to understand what they were going to say to him. Let me point out this lack of courtesy on the one hand, and this tendency to arrogance on the other. The two probably went hand in hand….
Therefore, these imposed limits did not allow us to go further with Pashinyan on a certain number of real issues. As the editor-in-chief of “Nouvelles d’Arménie,” I would like to ask the Prime Minister and the former journalist the following questions:
Is the defense of the Armenian Cause in the Diaspora generally an asset or a burden for Armenia?
Does the Prime Minister imagine that a country like France, which made April 24 a national day of remembrance of the 1915 genocide, would speak out in favor of this Caucasian country if it were not for the influence and struggle of 500,000 French Armenians?
Isn’t the alternative he creates between the real Armenia and the dream Armenia the very basis of a false debate aimed at disqualifying his political opponents, when Armenia has never made territorial claims to its neighbors, including during the 30 years that the current opposition was in power?
Does this rhetoric not give value to Azerbaijani accusations that condemn “Armenian revanchism,” while resorting to an ultra-nationalist narrative?
Does Pashinyan see himself as a pioneer of pragmatism and realpolitik? It seems that before him, Ter-Petrosyan did not try to restore relations with Ankara, Kocharyan was not suspected of discussing the exchange between Artsakh and Meghri, and that the Armenian-Turkish protocols of 2008 never existed.
Does he really believe that he is the first to face the challenges of statehood. And does he perceive the rest as simple “dreamers”?
If his priority is Armenia’s security, why continue to break off relations with Russia, which has been a bulwark against pan-Turkism, willy-nilly?
How much of a pledge is given to the West in this diplomatic orientation, and what guarantees has he received in return for his protection?
If security is the country’s insurmountable horizon, wasn’t the Velvet Revolution a grave carelessness, pitting us against Moscow?
Why, when he promised not to change the foundations of foreign policy, did he rush to dismiss the head of diplomacy on the spot after coming to power, in particular the architect of the Francophonie summit in Yerevan?
Why has he multiplied his provocations towards Russia since his election, while showing a disturbing obedience towards Turkey?
Does he imagine that he is capable of sowing discord between Azerbaijan and Turkey, which are two states of the same nation?
Why join the International Criminal Court, in defiance of Vladimir Putin, and now refuse to file any lawsuit against Azerbaijan?
And finally, what is the reason for this obsession with blaming one’s own people? To reach this Paris statement, where he questioned the reasons why “Armenians paid the highest price in 1915, and not others.” A strange tendency towards national self-flagellation, as if Armenia bore responsibility for the persecutions it suffered.
Is the drive for European integration serious and safe, when nothing on the Brussels side suggests a reciprocal desire? When Armenia receives more than half of its foreign trade revenues from membership in the Eurasian Economic Union, and 7.5% from Europe, is this candidacy not a purely ideological position, cut off from reality?
What is the reason for this undermining work against all the pillars of the Armenian nation: its history, the church, the Diaspora, and even the All-Armenian Fund?
Where are you going, Mr. Pashinyan, where are you taking the country?
