Armenia’s constitutional crucible: Sovereignty under siege
Across the South Caucasus, 2025 has brought a moment of constitutional reckoning for Armenia. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s announcement that a referendum on a new constitution will follow the 2026 parliamentary elections is being framed as a step toward democratic legitimacy. Yet, the initiative risks institutionalizing concessions imposed by external pressures, with the prime minister increasingly appearing as a reactive manager of Armenia’s geopolitical vulnerabilities rather than a proactive architect of national strategy.
This process could emerge as the region’s most consequential political text since the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration, which confirmed the Soviet Union’s dissolution and codified the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The contrast is stark: where that declaration represented a collective step into a new political order, Pashinyan’s constitutional project reflects the reactive, piecemeal navigation of a nation under duress.
Already a subscriber?Log in here
This story is FREE for you...
Create a free account to access this and four more articles, and get more sent to you with our e-newsletter.By submitting your email address you agree for Hairenik Association, Inc. to send you communication by email.
A nation’s predicament stems not only from its geographical location and from stronger enemies, but also from choosing and being led by the worst possible leader during the worst possible situation. Throughout history, many nations have experienced divisions, invasions and subjugation, because they were led by incompetent leaders. Armenia’s misfortune is also partly due to disastrous leadership during its most vulnerable periods of its millennia-long history. Pashinyan absolutely ranks among the worst leaders in Armenia’s very long history. Apart from the Armenian Bolsheviks, there is no other Armenian leader in modern Armenian history and also beyond, who has been such a sellout, self-serving and treacherous as Pashinyan.
The author makes the following assertions in his article:
a) Iran is leveraging its position to promote dialogue and regional stability, while signaling respect for Armenia’s political sovereignty.
b) Iran has taken a measured approach, emphasizing dialogue and regional cooperation rather than pursuing unilateral advantage, positioning itself as a potential partner for Armenia in managing its broader geopolitical challenges.
More than three years ago, a veteran Iranian diplomat, Abolfazl Zohrevand, in an attempt to answer the question “Who is Pashinyan?” emphasized the following points:
a) “Nikol is a foreign agent [Azerbaijani] who infiltrated a country friendly to Iran [Armenia].
b) “The term “infiltrator” is a direct synonym for the term “agent”
c) “Considering that at least Mirzoyan Ararat is, in fact, a confirmed, documented double agent, it should seem quite natural that his leader [Nikol] could also be an agent, and in fact he is.”
d) “He [Pashinyan] is the reason for the sad consequence of the 44-day war.”
https://artsakhtheinadequateresponse.blogspot.com/2022/09/what-did-we-learn-since-february-2022.html
Knowing well that Nikol is a “bona fide” foreign agent committed to the “Western Plot” to evict Russia from the South Caucasus, and destroy the regime of the Ayatollahs in Tehran, it seems that Iran is partnering with the wrong Armenian leader to address the “Geopolitical Challenges” and instability Nikol will impose on the region in the process of implementing a doctrine he clearly articulated from 2010 to 2018;
“Aveli lave Turkine shoune ellal kante menal Roussine Dzaran.” English translation:
It is much better to be the dog of Turkey rather than remain the obedient servant of Russia.”
What are the miscalculations that are shaping the notion that the Iranian leadership can partner and constructively work with a foreign agent like Pashinyan to save the destiny of the current administration in Tehran?
Is the Iranian leadership so gullible that it can consider a foreign agent like Pashinyan as a viable partner to establish “Stability” in the South Caucasus?
A man who betrayed his own nation, who masterminded and implemented the “Engineered Defeat” of the 44-Day War, who sacrificed casually 5,000 brave Armenian soldiers, would he easily refrain from betraying Iran, the day he receives a call from his paymaster that Israeli bombers stationed in Azerbaijan will use Armenian airspace to reach targets deep inside Iran, and he is expected to issue the appropriate orders to his army commanders instructing them to abstain from any activity that will interfere with the movement of the Israeli strike force using Armenian air space?
The Iranian leadership, before betting on the wrong horse named Pashinyan should consult the Armenian academics who labelled Armenia’s Prime Minister as
“Ankarayi yev bakouyi chaheri havadarim espassargoghe, intchbess nayev medz tourani aznive kordznagal.”
“Loyal servant of the interests of Ankara and Baku, and also the humble enabler of “The Greater Turan” dream (Pan-Turkism).”
https://artsakhtheinadequateresponse.blogspot.com/2023/05/is-treachery-dominant-trait-of.html
Արդյո՞ք դավաճանությունը Փաշինյան ընտանիքի գերիշխող հատկանիշն է
https://artsakhtheinadequateresponse.blogspot.com/2024/09/blog-post.html