Why is Pashinyan so eager to debate Armenia’s first three presidents? There are several reasons. He wants to show that the Third Republic, which was based on victories and dignity, is worse than the “Fourth” one he has founded — a republic that will emerge (if it ever does) as a result of defeats and humiliations and will be under Turkey’s direct control. Therefore, he is a “much wiser and more skillful” leader than the first three.
But the main motivation is that, for any figure who loves shows and applause, it is important to present himself as a brilliant orator and an unmatched “put-down” master. That is why, I think, Pashinyan greatly enjoys the Q&A sessions with the parliamentary opposition, during which he delivers remarks that, although usually unrelated to the topic under discussion, sound sharp, biting, and — in Civil Contract jargon — “humiliating.” (When there is no Q&A, similar remarks appear as monologues on Facebook.)
In short, Pashinyan needs a “debate” with the former presidents so that, regardless of how it unfolds, a certain part of the public — representing his intellectual level, his electorate, his “people” — will exclaim: “Wow, look how our powerful Prime Minister crushed those thieves into the mud!”
Fine, let’s assume that with his agile tongue and his “tricks” and “wordplay,” Pashinyan manages to “defeat” the three presidents, and that his electorate, the masses on his wavelength, his “people,” find it all extremely convincing. Let’s even assume that all three million citizens of Armenia agree that defeat and humiliation are good, while victory and dignity are bad. What will that change?
Read also
Will the captives be freed?
Will the displaced live decent lives?
Will the roads reopen?
Even if Pashinyan wins every verbal sparring match ten to zero, “the people” will, of course, experience another wave of excitement and adoration.
But life will remain the same.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
