In 2016-2017, taxi drivers would save Nikol Pashinyan’s speeches in parliament on their phones, and if the drive was rather long, they would play the speeches to earn satisfaction because of how that opposition politician was able to “destroy” the Republicans. From the perspective of my upbringing and personal tastes, his vocabulary and speeches were far from perfect, despite the fact that he made many correct observations (it’s another question entirely that he needed to grow out of that ‘opposition tribune’ after three years in power). But in all cases, the language used in those speeches mostly fit within political vocabulary.
A few days ago, a taxi driver was watching a speech by an American-Armenian compatriot who was uniquely commenting on current events in politics. The “peculiarity” was that almost every sentence contained sexual insults. The driver smiled contentedly after each swear. The “uncensored” phrases were mostly addressed to the former authorities, but also some of the current authorities. When I asked him to turn off the video, the taxi driver said, “I’m sorry, I know that this doesn’t suit your tastes, but they’re completely right.”
To be honest, I was not aware of our compatriot’s “creations,” and, naturally, I am not preparing to watch those videos, but I checked and saw that those videos receive tens, if not hundreds of thousands of views. And here I am thinking: if the “people” ever “reject” the current Prime Minister, it will not be for the sake of the homeland, the state, or any other ideology. Even stomach problems will not be a reason for changes in government; the “antidote” to that is emigration. The “people” will “reject Nikol” for someone who will be more of a Pashinyan than Pashinyan himself, someone who is even more “correct,” more “insulting,” and who will use more “casual” language. In some ways, I am thankful to my former colleague for opening my eyes to the true character of the “people;” that was the most important discovery I made over the past six months.
The fact that we were defeated in war is, of course, a tragedy. What’s even more tragic is that the head architect of that tragedy is bold enough to stay in power. And the biggest tragedy is that this situation is tolerable for the “people.” If the “people decide” to change the leader who says things that please them, then they will choose another leader who will say even more pleasing things and who will lie to them in an even more sinister manner.
Read also
Why do I put the word “people” in quotations? Because that majority whose emotions I am describing is not worth being called the “people.”
Aram Abrahamyan
