Every time Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan makes a public statement, he ends up damaging Armenia’s interests.
The latest example of Pashinyan’s detrimental words is the 90-minute interview he gave to Armenia’s Public Television on November 22, 2024.
The first question was about how Pashinyan recently fired six top government officials by sending them a text message on a Sunday evening. The journalist asked why he fired them.
Pashinyan stated that their “dismissals are not personalized but are rather related to systems.” Nevertheless, he said that the fired officials “were doing a good job.” The journalist pointed out that the prime minister made no systemic changes but simply fired the individuals. He explained that these officials had made remarkable systemic improvements, but as time passed, they became part of the system. He went on to admit that “a similar thing happens to me too.”
The journalist, Tatev Danielyan, then questioned Pashinyan about his dismissal of the chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council Karen Andreasyan, “a body completely independent of the executive branch. It turns out that at the prime minister’s, so to speak, urging, he decided to submit a resignation letter. Now your opponents say, what is this if not pressure from one branch of government on the other?”
Pashinyan gave the unconvincing explanation that “there was no urging from the prime minister, there was a request from the prime minister.” The journalist responded, “There is a rupture between the statements and actions of the executive branch about an independent judicial system.”
There is no separation among the three branches of the government. Pashinyan single-handedly runs all three branches: the executive, legislative and judiciary. Anyone who deviates from his wishes is fired and replaced. Strangely, this man, who speaks about democracy day and night, violates the basic principles of democracy.
Pashinyan then made the mistake of saying the officials he “requested” to resign have two options: “fulfill the request and not to fulfill that request.” The journalist pointed out that if the officials refused to resign, there would be consequences. Pashinyan pleaded ignorance by asking, “What consequence?”
When asked if Pashinyan had consulted his advisors before firing the six officials, he proudly replied, “This was a one-person decision.”
The journalist then asked if Pashinyan had requested the resignation of Narek Zeynalyan, a member of the ruling parliamentary bloc. Pashinyan said yes. Zeynalyan resigned, but fellow parliamentary member Hovik Aghazaryan has so far refused Pashinyan’s “request” to resign. “I hope that my request will not remain unanswered,” Pashinyan said. Since that request, Aghazaryan has been interrogated several times by the authorities on suspicion of fraudulent activities. This is yet another example of the prime minister’s undue interference in the affairs of another branch of the government, the parliament.
Pashinyan also had a lengthy discussion about his persistent efforts to convince Pres. Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan to sign what he calls “a peace treaty,” despite the fact that Aliyev has not only shown no interest in signing such a document but has escalated his demands for further concessions from Armenia. Pashinyan does not seem to understand the difference between the signing of a piece of paper, which he calls “a peace treaty,” and actual peace.
However, the biggest gaffe Pashinyan made during his 90-minute interview was equating Aliyev’s demands for a fake “Western Azerbaijan” to replace the Republic of Armenia with Armenian demands for the historical territory of Western Armenia.
Without being asked any question on this subject, Pashinyan reluctantly offered, “Let me say one more thing, but OK, I won’t say it.” But when the journalist urged him to say it, he dropped a major bombshell: “OK. I will say it. We get so upset and take it so hard, consider it a problem, somewhere some people use the term Western Azerbaijan, right? But we say Western Armenia. Don’t we think that it irritates some people? Just like we are irritated when they say Western Azerbaijan, the same way when they say Western Armenia, others are irritated. Now again, they will say, the routine treason, the vile scum. Today I am in a situation in which I am obligated to talk with our people and show them the cause-and-effect relationships, chains. If I don’t do that, it means that I am consciously leading our country towards the loss of statehood. I cannot allow that.”
This is a very shameful statement by the head of the government of Armenia. One would expect such an answer from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan or Aliyev, but not from Armenia’s leader. Incredibly, even Erdogan and Aliyev have not made such an anti-Armenian statement.
The final question, believe it or not, was: “Can you tell me the real reason why you decided to shave [your beard]?” In keeping with his usual practice of dodging questions, Pashinyan said, “It is clear that a change in the image is taking place… I can only say one thing. When I decided to shave, I decided the day: I will do it on my eldest daughter’s birthday, although now that this interview goes on the air, my other daughters will ask, why on her birthday, not on our birthday? I am convinced that Ashot [his son] is not ambitious in that regard, not only in that regard, and he will not raise such a question.”
Harut Sassounian
Latest posts by Harut Sassounian (see all)
- Aliyev the wolf vs. Pashinyan the lamb: It is clear who will devour whom - January 14, 2025
- Lladro produces ‘Karabakh horse’ porcelain figurines as propaganda for Azerbaijan - January 7, 2025
- Letters by Armenian Genocide eyewitnesses should be published in several languages - December 31, 2024
Is this guy for real?…is this guy a plant by foreign enemies of Armenia?…Am I missing something?…How is ANY progress to be made while this bufoon is in office?…until this incompetent clown is removed and a competent leader elected I have no hope…disaster is just around the corner with this idiot in office and his government…I have no more words.
Nicol’s intention is to create a society so weak and uninformed thus wiping out critical thinking and awareness, Nicol by definition is biggest deception to his own people.
We all know who installed this puppet. Sad thing is, until he is removed from office, nothing will change. Only a military coup can remove this traitor.
Harut Sassounian raises legitimate concerns about some of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s statements and actions. However, a balanced critique must take into account the extraordinary challenges Armenia faces, and the difficult trade-offs required of its leadership. Sassounian’s portrayal of Pashinyan as exclusively detrimental to Armenia’s interests disregards the broader context of his actions and the pragmatic governance needed to navigate the nation through its current volatile geopolitical environment.
Pashinyan’s leadership style and decisions reflect the complexities of governing a nation under existential threat. While some of his methods may be controversial, they are not inherently indefensible. His approach demonstrates a willingness to make difficult choices, often under immense pressure, to ensure Armenia’s stability and sovereignty.
One of Sassounian’s strongest criticisms is aimed at Pashinyan’s remarks comparing references to “Western Armenia” and “Western Azerbaijan.” This statement has been misconstrued as equating the legitimacy of the two claims. In reality, Pashinyan was highlighting the need for Armenians to understand how their rhetoric is perceived by others, especially in a region rife with historical grievances and deep-seated animosities. Recognizing these dynamics is not an act of betrayal but an effort to foster pragmatic dialogue and avoid exacerbating tensions. His remarks reflect an understanding that diplomacy requires navigating the complex perceptions and narratives that shape regional relations.
Sassounian also criticizes Pashinyan’s persistent efforts to secure a peace treaty with Azerbaijan, accusing him of naivety. However, this perspective fails to appreciate the necessity of exploring diplomatic solutions, even in the face of a hostile counterpart. Negotiating peace is a pragmatic approach to stabilize the region and reduce the risk of further conflict. A peace treaty, while not a guarantee of peace, provides a framework for accountability, international oversight, and the possibility of de-escalation. By pursuing a treaty, Pashinyan demonstrates a commitment to protecting Armenia’s sovereignty and ensuring the safety of its people. Dismissing such efforts outright risks prolonging instability and conflict.
Leadership often requires making difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions. Sassounian critiques Pashinyan’s dismissal of government officials, viewing it as autocratic and undemocratic. However, requests for resignations are not inherently undemocratic if conducted within legal frameworks and without coercion. In fact, political leaders across the globe, including U.S. presidents, frequently replace officials who no longer align with their vision or policies. This practice is particularly common in systems undergoing significant reform, where ensuring alignment within the leadership is crucial for implementing systemic changes. Pashinyan’s decisions, while open to scrutiny, reflect the necessity of taking decisive action in a time of national crisis.
While Sassounian’s critiques raise important questions about Pashinyan’s governance, they lack the nuance and context necessary to provide a fair evaluation. Armenia is at a crossroads, facing existential threats and immense geopolitical challenges. In such a context, Pashinyan’s actions should be judged not by their adherence to idealistic expectations, but by their effectiveness in safeguarding Armenia’s sovereignty, stability, and future. Leadership under these conditions is an inherently imperfect exercise, requiring bold decisions and pragmatic compromises that may not always sit comfortably with traditional views. Rather than dismissing Pashinyan’s efforts as detrimental, it is crucial to recognize their complexity and the broader intent to secure Armenia’s long-term survival and progress.