Kindergarten logic is deeply ingrained in the behavior of our authorities. The moment they act indecently, they immediately justify themselves with excuses like, “But they started it first,” or “We’re just responding.” “They,” of course, meaning opposition figures, bloggers, or social media personalities who also often behave inappropriately, hurling personal insults or spreading gossip about those in power. But there is no true symmetry here.
When “Dog” (and thousands like him) resorts to vulgarity or slander, and when Pashinyan does the same, the two may be equally condemnable from a moral standpoint—but in terms of politics and statehood, they are vastly different phenomena. When “Dog” targets citizen X of the Republic of Armenia, he lacks any real power to cause material harm. He does not have the National Security Service, police, prosecutors, or courts at his disposal.
The Prime Minister, on the other hand, does. He possesses all of those levers of power. That he can use them to serve personal or political interests is certainly a serious problem—just as it’s a problem when a CP member becomes chief of police—but that is a separate issue. The point here is about current realities.
For example, when Pashinyan or someone from his inner circle calls someone a “robber,” it isn’t just an insult—it can activate the entire repressive machinery of the state to pursue or discredit that person. When the Prime Minister claims that someone is having a sexual relationship with a particular woman, that is fundamentally different from “Dog’s” crude remarks. Why? Because it is reasonable to assume that such a claim could be weaponized using the state apparatus—by leaking surveillance or compromising material through official or unofficial channels.
Read also
Even in the absence of a direct order, there will always be eager actors within the state system ready to serve the country’s top official by acting on such cues.
So when it comes to “inappropriate remarks,” there is no equivalence. Even if the “bosses” are not the ones launching the initial attacks, but are simply giving an “adequate response” or a decisive counterattack, their actions can still have administrative consequences.
…And I’m not even touching on the issue of “educating the public.”
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
