Why is joining the pack against victims of state persecution regarded as an act of civic courage?
What kind of heroism or civic courage does it take to attack people who are already behind bars, to vilify them, and to echo government propaganda? To me, this is the kind of behavior characteristic of Tabaqui, the jackal from Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book.
I am referring, of course, to the victims of political and personal persecution—Armen Ashotyan, Andranik Tevanyan, Avetik Chalabyan, Aregnaz Manukyan, and many, many others. The most striking example is undoubtedly Gagik Tsarukyan.
In his book Ecce Homo: How One Becomes What One Is (1888), Friedrich Nietzsche outlines his approach to intellectual combat and polemics. He writes that his “war tactics” can be reduced to several principles: attacking only those things that have already become powerful and victorious; attacking only when he stands alone, without allies; not attacking individuals personally, but using them as a lens through which a broader problem can be exposed; and never engaging in controversy out of personal resentment or a desire for revenge.
Read also
Indeed, joining the pack against the weak is not only despicable—it is also profoundly uninteresting.
And how does the coward, the self-serving opportunist—the proverbial Tabaqui—behave? He looks for excuses to attack someone who is already in trouble. In Tsarukyan’s case, those excuses generally fall into two categories.
Excuse No. 1: Why did he threaten Pashinyan during the election campaign, saying that he would throw him into the lions’ cage?
Yes, that was wrong. I am convinced that no one should make such threats against anyone. But when a private individual makes such a threat, however unacceptable it may be, it remains merely words. When the country’s top official makes such threats, however, as in Armenia’s case with Pashinyan, it means something entirely different: it means mobilizing the entire state and repressive apparatus to take revenge on someone who criticizes him—or simply someone he dislikes.
Excuse No. 2: Why was he looting for 30 years? (Or 35, or 40, depending on the imagination of the accuser.)
But here, too, questions arise. Why is Tsarukyan’s alleged “looting” remembered precisely when he becomes politically active? Tsarukyan has never held public office, meaning he could not have directly “looted” the state budget. If he paid bribes to help certain businesses flourish, why have the state officials who accepted those bribes not been held accountable? Could he, alone and without the involvement of government officials, have “looted” anything? Obviously not.
Why should his businesses be shut down because of allegations of “looting”? Why is his property being taken away? Why is he being publicly humiliated? And why are animals belonging to him being put down? How can a businessman’s companies be effectively taken over by the state without a court decision? To what extent does all of this fit within the framework of a state governed by the rule of law?
At this rate, one might expect that, under the pretext of “investigative actions,” they would also break the statue of Christ or damage the churches built by Tsarukyan. That would hardly be out of character for Pashinyan.
I have also read another explanation. According to this version, Tsarukyan is being punished not because of “looting” or his “lions’ cage” remark, but because of his allegedly pro-Russian and pro-Belarusian stance. Since such arguments are being voiced by people close to the authorities, this version, too, cannot simply be dismissed.
Let me recall that Armenia’s Central Electoral Commission annulled the results in three polling stations and then unlawfully refrained from scheduling a repeat vote, specifically with the aim of preventing the Prosperous Armenia Party from crossing the four-percent threshold. Thus, the political component was present from the very beginning.
But what interests me is not so much politics, nor even the kind of arbitrary rule and lawlessness once summed up by the Russian word bespredel—as the reaction of society and, in particular, of a significant part of the country’s intellectuals.
Kicking someone when they are already down is the occupation of cowards and weaklings.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
Aravot Daily
21.07.2026
