Democratic majority elicits cries of authoritarianism.

 Vaհe H Apelian

Recently Ara Nazarian PhD, posted an article in the July 22, 2025 issue of Armenian Weekly titling it “A leadership in crisis: The political psychology of Nikol Pashinyan’s downward spiral.”  Nazarian alleged to Nikol Pashinyan’s “persistent delusion of infallibility. Despite catastrophic failures….”

During the same time frame, on July 25, 2025, the former FM Vartan Oskanian wrote in Horizon Weekly,  a rebuttal not only of Nikol Pashinyan led government, but also of the European Union alleging complicity. Vartan Oskanian wrote: “As Armenia abandons democracy and descends ever deeper into authoritarianism, the European Union watches in silence. In fact, it is worse than silence. The EU—along with the embassies of its member states in Yerevan—is complicit through willful inaction, diplomatic hedging, and strategic cynicism.” 

Both of them, Ara Nazarian PhD and Vartan Oskanian are known for their persistent and relentless opposition to the thrice democratically elected PM of Armenia. In my view, NP led government of Armenia is not in crisis, or has abandoned democracy, nor is in a downward spiral or has any “delusion of infallibility.”

The fact of the matter is that Nikol Pashinyan led Civil Contract party has 2/3 of the National Assembly delegates and thus commands the majority of the National Assembly. It is the first parliamentary form government in Armenia and is a very cohesive administration against a relentless opposition and enjoys the support of the army and internal security as evidenced by the latter’s uncovering of the subversive plot organized by high placed clerics. It is also apparent that the Nikol Pashinyan enjoys the support of his government officials freeing himself to pursue an active political engagement abroad that has him out of Armenia without concern.

The three presidential form governments did not enjoy similar solidarity. In fact, Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s government officials, including Vartan Oskanian, stood against their president LTP and had him resign. Serzh Sargsyan government splintered and its ARF faction abandoned the Serzh Sargsyan led Republican Pary with which it had formed a government during the previous two terms, and voted for Nikol Pashinyan in the May 8, 2018 snap parliamentary election. When things soured there, ARF formed a coalition not with Serzh Sargsyan, but with Robert Kocharyan. 

Emboldened by its rightful mandate, Nikol Pashinyan government pursues its “crossroad for peace” strategic initiative as the cornerstone of its foreign ministry and internally has institutionalized the legal pursuit of corruption and pursues it as well. 

Democratic majority elicits cries of authoritarianism. There is no form of government that pleases everyone some of the time, let alone all of the time, especially for the Armenians. 

Incidentally, such rhetorical articles in the Diaspora Armenian press serve to stir the emotions of the Diaspora non-voting public or reader, to the detriment of Diaspora. I do not think there is much of a readership of the Armenian Diaspora press in Armenia, especially in English. In Armenia the voters have to contend with the anti-Armenian government directives of the Russian government officials.

Hagop, a commentator in the Armenian Weekly, had countered Ara Nazarian’s PhD bombastic text. Hagop’s comment pertains to Vartan Oskanian as well. I took the liberty of posting it here for the interested readers to make up their minds.. 

 "Hagop says:

July 22, 2025 at 9:13 pm

The article in question is not a sober analysis of Armenian politics—it is a manipulative, sensationalist hit piece, replete with psychological conjecture, historical false equivalencies, and a disturbing undercurrent of disdain for the democratic will of the Armenian people. Its central thesis—that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is psychologically unfit for leadership—is not only irresponsible, it is deeply undemocratic.

1. “Psychological Decline” or Rational Leadership in an Existential Crisis?

The article opens with an armchair diagnosis, hinting at “paranoia” and “emotional detachment” without any credible evidence or firsthand accounts. But Pashinyan is not lashing out randomly—he is making difficult decisions in a period of unprecedented pressure.

Armenia is emerging from war, regional isolation, and generational trauma. It faces existential threats from Turkey and Azerbaijan, whose alliance has resulted in a violent ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh)—a tragedy that international actors, including the article’s likely intended audience, have largely ignored.

Pashinyan’s efforts to normalize relations, secure peace, and refocus on Armenia’s long-term viability are not signs of collapse; they are acts of political realism. Is compromise difficult to stomach? Yes. But to equate compromise with psychological breakdown is both dishonest and dangerous.

2. The Church: Accountability Is Not Desecration.

The article falsely paints Pashinyan’s critique of the Armenian Apostolic Church as “calculated desecration.” But what the article calls “attacks” are, in truth, calls for reform and accountability within an institution that has long operated with unchecked privilege and political influence.

The Church is not above scrutiny in a democracy. Pashinyan’s criticisms are consistent with a government seeking to modernize Armenia’s civic institutions, reduce clerical overreach, and ensure the separation of church and state—a cornerstone of democratic governance.

Furthermore, Pashinyan is not alone in his views. Many Armenians, especially among the youth and diaspora, have expressed disillusionment with a Church hierarchy that has at times aligned itself with authoritarian and corrupt political figures from the past.

3. The Aliyev Meeting: Leadership, Not Capitulation.

The article ridicules Pashinyan’s demeanor following a meeting with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, as though leadership is measured in photo ops and facial expressions. This is a grotesque trivialization of diplomatic statecraft.

What the author neglects to mention is that Pashinyan is negotiating under conditions of military blackmail. Azerbaijan, emboldened by Turkish and Israeli arms and Russian indifference, has used force and coercion to impose its will.

And yet, despite these pressures, Pashinyan has not surrendered Armenia’s sovereignty. He has maintained Armenia’s international recognition of borders, pushed back against Azerbaijan’s more extreme demands (including the complete erasure of Armenian border presence in Syunik), and sought guarantees through EU and US mediation. These are signs of strategic pragmatism—not weakness.

4. Ceaușescu Comparisons: An Insult to Intelligence.

To liken Pashinyan to Nicolae Ceaușescu is a farcical and offensive comparison. Ceaușescu ruled as a totalitarian dictator, controlled all aspects of Romanian life, and murdered dissenters.

Pashinyan, by contrast, was democratically elected—twice—by overwhelming margins. The most recent election in 2021, held after the painful loss in Artsakh, gave him a renewed mandate. That is not the behavior of a delusional dictator; it is democracy in action.

He has not outlawed opposition parties. Armenia has free media, vigorous protests, and a parliamentary system that holds government to account. Arrests related to alleged coup plots or terrorism are being handled through due process, and in a region where genuine subversion and foreign-sponsored destabilization are real threats, such vigilance is not unusual.

5. Delusions of Infallibility? Or a Mandate to Reform.

The article accuses Pashinyan of “cognitive dissonance” and “delusions of infallibility.” In reality, he has publicly acknowledged failures, taken personal responsibility for the loss of Artsakh, and invited public scrutiny—even at enormous personal cost.

What he refuses to do, however, is surrender the reform mandate granted to him by the people. Under his leadership, Armenia has made major strides:

• Anti-corruption reforms have led to criminal investigations into oligarchs and former officials once thought untouchable.

• Civil society is freer and more active than ever.

• Education, tax policy, and infrastructure have seen renewed investment.

• Armenia has diversified its foreign policy beyond Moscow, engaging the EU, US, and India.

These are not the hallmarks of authoritarian collapse. They are the signs of a country struggling—bravely—to emerge from the shadows of history.

6. Emotional Blunting or Responsible Governance?

The accusation that Pashinyan has become “emotionally detached” is another classic smear. But effective leadership is not about emoting for cameras. It’s about taking responsibility in the face of tragedy and protecting a nation’s future, even when the path forward is unpopular.

Pashinyan understands the trauma of war—he lost political allies, credibility, and public support after 2020. And yet he stayed, faced the music, and rebuilt. That requires not delusion, but moral courage.

A Democratic Mandate Cannot Be Pathologized.

The article’s final suggestion—that the Armenian people should question Pashinyan’s “psychological and moral fitness”—is not an appeal to civic responsibility. It is a thinly veiled call for regime change, cloaked in academic pretension and emotional manipulation

But Armenians do not need foreign analysts, disillusioned ex-politicians, or anonymous think-tankers to tell them who should lead. They have a voice. They have a vote. And they will decide.

Pashinyan may not be perfect. No leader is. But to brand him a liability to the state while ignoring the enormous pressures, geopolitical betrayals, and legacy of corruption he inherited is a gross injustice—not just to him, but to the Armenian people themselves.

Armenia does not need a saviour. It needs peace, justice, and continued reform—and that, whether critics like it or not, is exactly what Nikol Pashinyan has been trying to deliver.”