Secondary issues should not divide us
Today, I consider Robert Kocharyan a more preferable candidate than Nikol Pashinyan. To be sure, they share traits such as authoritarian tendencies, intolerance, and an aggressive attitude toward opponents. But Pashinyan stands apart: he is, in my view, the author of our historic and disastrous failures. Moreover, Kocharyan—regardless of his personal beliefs—would never resort to crude or confrontational actions against the Armenian Apostolic Church. No party program, apart from Civil Contract’s, includes an unlawful and unconstitutional provision to remove the Catholicos. For me, this is a matter of principle.
That said, it is hard not to note that Kocharyan today appears to be asserting himself at the expense of other opposition figures, which comes across as somewhat petty. In my view, a former head of state should avoid the temptation to revisit or “revise” past political relationships. I do not believe that in 2008 Kocharyan had a wide range of options in choosing a successor. If he now regrets that decision, it would be more constructive for him to say whom, with the benefit of hindsight, he considers the more достойным candidate. If, indeed, there is any real need for such “historical reconstruction.”
Frankly, in recent months, when I saw posts by members of the Republican Party and their allies directed against Kocharyan, I found myself wondering whether this was the right moment for such exchanges. Now, however, after the second president spoke about his “mistake,” I tend to think these reactions may be a response to messaging from the Kocharyan camp, which is less visible to me. As far as I know, members of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) who support Kocharyan have, to their credit, stayed out of this. That party could use its authority to put an end to these mutual barbs.
Read also
Kocharyan’s criticism of the current authorities is, in many respects, justified. It would be far more productive if he—like other opposition figures—focused on the past eight years, since the immediate priority is to halt what I see as a destructive trajectory for the state. What happened earlier can be left for later discussion.
Why should we avoid delving into the more distant past right now? The answer, I believe, is clear: to avoid undermining the mobilization of opposition-minded voters. A simple example: Kocharyan argues that he won the 1998 election against Karen Demirchyan fairly, without using administrative resources, noting that his opponent was backed by the so-called “red directors,” none of whom were later prosecuted or arrested. Yet thousands of citizens—including myself—disagree.
As Armenia’s experience over the past three decades shows, both “red” and “non-red” business elites tend to adapt quickly to any власти, aligning themselves with whoever holds power in order to protect their assets and businesses. And in 1998, the stronger side was the one that carried out the February palace coup. Kocharyan’s candidacy was actively supported by then-Defense Minister Vazgen Sargsyan and Interior and National Security Minister Serzh Sargsyan. State television also operated in his favor, with its flagship news program waging an aggressive campaign in support of the acting president. At the time, there were no powerful alternative sources of information such as social media or independent online platforms.
Some of those who want Pashinyan to step down view those events in this way; others may see them differently. But is this really the moment to draw dividing lines over such secondary issues?
I believe we should all genuinely hope that the Armenia Alliance clears the 8 percent threshold, as there is little doubt that it would not cooperate with Pashinyan. At this moment, that is what matters most.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
