鈥淎CNIS ReView from Yerevan鈥 . The question-and-answer sessions between the National Assembly and the Government have recently become unprecedentedly intense, almost always escalating into a controversial incident or, as is commonly referred to in such cases, a scandal. Not to mention the occasional episodes when the sparks of scandal can ignite into a 鈥渇lame,鈥 prompting the people鈥檚 representatives to unleash their fists. The instigators of the disputes and fights are usually members of the ruling political force, the 鈥淐ivil Contract鈥 faction, who not only outnumber the opposition twofold but also enjoy significantly greater privileges, allowing them to 鈥渢each lessons鈥 to critics of the government.
Since the beginning of this year, thankfully, things have not escalated to physical altercations, but every Wednesday鈥攚hen the National Assembly-Government question-and-answer session takes place鈥攕candals are inevitable. Especially on the days when the person occupying the prime minister鈥檚 chair is present, which, as luck would have it, is always. In the past, the country鈥檚 top officials rarely appeared in the National Assembly. Answering parliamentary questions was primarily the responsibility of government members, department leaders, or specialists, with an additional representative invited from the president鈥檚 residence if necessary.
Now, the order has changed. Nikol Pashinyan apparently cannot envision his life without the National Assembly tribune, from which, over the past seven years, more 鈥渇loods鈥 of lies, manipulations, and insults have poured than in the previous 30 years combined. During Pashinyan鈥檚 tenure, the parliamentary question-and-answer platform has never served its intended purpose. Opposition questions are typically posed as challenges, while Pashinyan鈥檚 answers are delivered as threats. The Wednesday session on May 7, which we closely followed, was a vivid testament to this.
The behavioral and facial transformations of the mentioned individual warrant serious psychoanalytical research. Initially, he was calm鈥攐r at least spoke on topics that, in some sense, seemed natural. For example, ruling out snap parliamentary elections: on the one hand, this was an indirect response to the opposition鈥檚 discussions on impeachment, which were among the key issues in domestic politics at the time; on the other hand, it was a signal to his team, indicating there was no need to worry too much about losing power, as a one-year pre-election period would be enough to iron out all difficulties.
Then, Pashinyan gradually began to grow agitated and enraged, particularly when he revisited one of his recurring themes鈥攖he obsessive idea of inviting the three former presidents to a debate. He knows full well that none of the presidents takes him seriously, as they all have made it clear that they have nothing to debate with a 鈥渘ational calamity.鈥 Especially after the loss of Artsakh: once it鈥檚 been surrendered, there is no longer any subject for debate. What is the point of debating when there is nothing left? It is evident that this theme is merely a pretext to portray himself as daring鈥攕omeone who boldly challenges others to face him in a public debate.
But the main scandal unfolded when opposition MP Anna Grigoryan posed a targeted question about corruption to Pashinyan. At that point, he lost his composure, unleashed a barrage of threats against the opposition, and stormed off the tribune. And before leaving, he declared a 鈥渧erdict鈥 that the opposition belongs in the NSS basement, that they have no place in the National Assembly, and so on. There is nothing surprising about the fact that a question related to corruption stirred up his rage. This is the man who came to power with clear promises to eradicate corruption and graft, but as it turns out, not only has he broken that promise, but he and his team are now knee-deep in the mire of corruption themselves.
The Armenian Center for National and International Studies