Once, an opposition MP delivered a critical speech in parliament. In response, Pashinyan claimed that corruption flourished in one of the faculties at YSU, with which the MP had an indirect connection — even though the criticism had nothing to do with YSU. On another occasion, the Prime Minister replied to an MP’s criticism by saying he knew which hotels that MP had stayed in during foreign trips. This raises a serious question: how does he know? The logical assumption is that he obtained this information through his official position — likely via special services. In other words, he used state resources to dig up personal compromising material on an opponent. Again, the criticism had nothing to do with hotels or tours.
More recently, clergy reacted strongly against Pashinyan’s comment that churches are “chulas” (junkrooms) where old things are stored. In response, the Prime Minister claimed that one of the priests was in a sexual relationship with a relative of his. (Whether the word he used to describe those relations qualifies as a curse or not, I leave to the linguists.) But what exactly is the logic here? Do such allegations somehow prove that churches are “chulas”? What kind of reasoning is this?
Former Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian regularly writes about foreign policy. In my view, his posts often contain solid critique, along with a few debatable ideas. But Pashinyan doesn’t engage with those ideas.
Instead, he brings up a kindergarten in Dilijan that was granted to the organization headed by Oskanyan’s wife, which, according to him, hasn’t been renovated in 19 years.
Read also
Even if true, what does that have to do with Oskanian’s foreign policy arguments? Obviously, nothing.
But the Pashinyan–Dog electorate isn’t interested in arguments, evidence, or civilized debate. They are interested in gossip. And Pashinyan delivers exactly that.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
