“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum…. even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”. This idea is from one of the most famous intellectuals of our time, the American scientist Noam Chomsky.
The current government and opposition of Armenia confirm this pattern. It seems to be a free debate, so free that it sometimes turns into hand-to-hand combat in parliament. But the range of opinions is very limited.
Let’s take a simple example. On Sunday, the residents of Syunik’s border villages warmly welcomed Prime Minister Pashinyan. These are the villages that faced serious security problems as a result of a series of defeats by Pashinyan’s government, including the ceding of our sovereign territory.
Why are those people so happy when they see Pashinyan? According to the version of the opposition, everything is staged: special people were placed close to the prime minister to perform in front of the cameras. The official hypothesis is that our wise people understand what a brilliant leader Pashinyan is and the happiness he has brought to the proud citizens of Armenia.
Read also
Both hypotheses explain nothing. To understand the deeper meaning, those propaganda formulas are insufficient. One should refer to the 30-year history of Armenia and modern “brainwashing” technologies.
Similarly, the real diversity of parliamentary debate is limited. Discussing whether Pashinyan is a Turk, a traitor, or a savior of the Armenian people is as effective as debating whether a given mathematical formula is sweet or red.
Aram Abrahamyan
