From time to time, I come across “information” on the internet suggesting that members of the Civil Contract party (CP) have made stern demands of Prime Minister Pashinyan—for example, to rein in his wife’s publicly inappropriate vocabulary. According to these ‘reports’, they don’t even specify whether they would resign or give up their mandates if their demands were ignored.
I am convinced this “information” is utterly false. Such speculation likely comes from people unfamiliar with Pashinyan’s leadership style—people who naively believe that his subordinates are in a position to gently suggest that he might be wrong about something.
Just listen to how he shouts at opposition MPs. Now imagine how he must speak to his own team. In reality, CP deputies and officials are incapable of reacting to their leader’s decisions in any way other than with unconditional praise and support.
But the issue here is not just a matter of personal style—it’s systemic. The real problem lies in the absence of strong, functioning institutions. A populist system is built on a disregard for institutions. There is the leader, and there is “the people” who support him. Everything in between—formally existing ministries, parliament, the bureaucracy, civil society—plays no real role and cannot challenge the leader without being portrayed as enemies of the people.
Read also
Suppose, for example, the Prime Minister tells the Prosecutor General: ‘Dig something up and lock him up.’ Can the prosecutor object, citing legal grounds? If he does, he would be accused of acting against “the will of the people.”
So, let’s be clear: ministers, advisers, and party officials don’t issue ultimatums to their “king.” They don’t even offer mild criticism.
…Can you imagine the Chairman of the Central Electoral Commission, Vahagn Hovakimyan, declaring that Civil Contract lost the election? What do you think Pashinyan would do to him?
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
