Why am I against labeling any politician or person expressing an opinion during a public debate? Because it frees us from the obligation to think, to actually discuss what a person has said and done, to point out mistakes. If a person is “enemy,” “pro-Soros,” or, say, “Chekist”, then there is no need to address their arguments.
This is a common propaganda trick. If you want to deny someone’s words or actions, but you do not have the desire or ability to argue substantively with that person, the shortest way to avoid it is to rate the person, see someone else’s “guiding hand,” or simply publish defamatory information. For example, an opposition MP addresses the National Assembly, and in response, the Prime Minister hints at their relatives. Or, suppose those who do not like what I have written can say that I am not the real author of this article, it is Levon Ter-Petrossian or Serzh Sargsyan. Or Hitler and Fantomas, the “negative characters” can be chosen according to the taste of the audience. The propaganda is structured in such a way that you say something, but your last name is Abrahamyan or Stambulyan, so you are a Jew or a Turk, respectively, and your word has no value. What is the point of discussing what the Mossad agent said?
The same can be said about the labels attached to the current Prime Minister of Armenia. Let me give you a simple example. In June 2019, he abruptly rejected the Minsk Group’s, in my opinion, profitable offer: hand over the 5 regions, and hand over the other two regions, Karvachar and Berdzor, in connection with the final status of Artsakh. The Russian Foreign Ministry’s commentary specifically emphasizes “in connection with the determination of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh.” And that “determination” could take decades. Why did Pashinyan refuse that opportunity- because he is a “traitor” and an “enemy”? I am sure that no, the problem is miscalculation, unfounded self-confidence, and boundless populism. It is important to understand, not to identify this or that trait, but to avoid making such mistakes in the future.
Opposite labels are just as useless. Is the opposition right when they claim that there is a serious threat to Artsakh? It seems to me that it is obvious. The government’s propaganda clichés about the “fifth column” do not eliminate that danger. Suppose the organizers of the Freedom Square rallies are all “Putin spies” and “Chekists.” Does it comfort us or does it change the reality for the better?
Read also
Aram Abrahamyan
