Exactly 50 days ago Eurasia Diary published my article devoted to summing up the results of the first fifty days of Armenia's Pashinyan in power in the wake of popular protests.

 

I will say absolutely honestly and frankly - from that moment nothing in my views on the policies and methods of the leadership of this figure has changed fundamentally - since his ascent to power I read and continue to consider him as an outspoken populist. Nevertheless, during the second half of his 100-day tenure in power, Pashinyan made some very noteworthy acts, not just actions, but truly actions, which I'm saying very seriously, and then forced me to talk about myself not just as a marginal leader of street protests , but as a politician who is capable and ready to make cardinal decisions. Over the past three months, Pashinyan has always acted loudly, with resent and even roaring, by destroying habitual stereotypes and overcoming the limits of the political predecessors allowed at the head of Armenia, why it was always interesting to observe him from the outside.

 

However, before starting to analyze some of its truly revolutionary transformations in Armenia that took place in the last month and a half, let me briefly, in a few theses, remind readers that I wrote about Pashinyan and his policy 50 days ago. This will sting me not repeated in the argumentation of the earlier conclusions, but at the same time it will enable us to use them as starting points for constructing new arguments. At the same time, I would like to note at once that Pashinyan's activity as head of Armenia is so confused, unsystematic and unbalanced that he simultaneously performs absolutely contradictory actions that are not amenable to logical comprehension, which, incidentally, is common to every populist.

 

I would like to remind myself of his first political and legal initiative - to abolish the collection of fines for violation of traffic rules, issued according to the traffic control cameras, but without canceling the fines themselves and then dismantling the cameras and excluding the rules of traffic rules. That is, he proposed to reverse the consequences of the application of the law without repealing the law itself. The legal nihilism of this initiative Pashinyan was the first martlet, followed by others on a mass scale. This was especially evident when he formulated his new approaches and principles for the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

 

Pashinyan on this issue immediately after coming to power in Armenia brought his country's position in pattern with the national legislation of the United States, and, to be more precise, in accordance with article 907 of the Central Committee in support of freedom, "according to which Nagorno-Karabakh is not recognized by the US government part of the sovereign territory of Azerbaijan. Declaring the need to include the Artsakh Quasi-State in the number of negotiators, he erased like dust all the results of the previous 24 years of Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement, while not surprising Azerbaijan, but completely discouraging the international mediators in the person OSCE Minsk Group and its co-chairs. All right, if he stopped here, for the benefit of this step there is a perfectly logical explanation: the "Karabakh clan" who ruled in Armenia for 18 years, and simply the junta of the field commanders of the illegal armed formations of the Armenian separatists of Nagorno-Karabakh, usurped the power in the country terrorist act on October 27, 1999 and dispersal of peaceful protests of citizens on May 1-2, 2008, and therefore cannot be considered legitimate, and all its actions are legal.

 

But no, he went further and sent his son to serve as a volunteer in the occupied Azerbaijani territories, thereby showing that Artsakh is not an independent state, but merely an occupation regime subordinate to Yerevan, and therefore an independent subject of the negotiation process cannot be either de- jure, or de facto. Pashinyan's last act also forced an interested third-party observer, among whom I also relate, to ponder the question of which political regime the current Prime Minister of Armenia wants to build in his country? The recent arrest of former Armenian President Robert Kocharian by the court of Yerevan on charges of usurping the authorities and, in fact, in organizing a coup d'etat, shows that Pashinyan wants to say goodbye to the heritage of the recent past, in everything related to the concept of the "Karabakh clan" and its state-political institutions and attributes, not only in foreign policy, but also in the internal. The same, in theory, should also be promoted by early parliamentary elections scheduled for late autumn, conducted solely to once and for all eliminate in the political space of Armenia the main organizational and ideological instrument of the "Karabakh clan" - the Republican Party of Armenia, and together with it - and the theory of tsigakrona or Aryan racial unity of all Armenians of the world, whose author is Garegin Nzhdeh - the founder of the Armenian phasim.

 

The fact that the Republican Party of Armenia was a frankly fascist party since its inception was not a secret for anyone reading a sagacious public, especially after the party booklet "Garegin Nzhdeh and His Teaching" was published in 2004. Armenians back in the early 1930s from the pages of the party newspaper "Dashnaktsutyun" more than once accused Mussolini of having stolen the ideology of fascism from Armenian nationalists, moreover these articles in newspaper records has survived to the present day. That is why the monument to Garegin Nzhdeh was erected in Yerevan in front of the government building of the country, which Pashinyan every day is forced to see from the window of his office. Therefore, his desire to make denazification in Armenia following the example of what happened in Germany after the Second World War can, should and must be welcomed. Nikol Pashinyan has a global historical chance to become a national hero of Armenia for all time if he does that, I claim absolutely seriously about it, if he can cleanse his nation from the bastards of fascist nationalism and instill in people of Armenia the essential features of the Western democratic culture.

 

However, personally, I do not believe that he will be able to lead the Armenian people to the path of civilization, democracy and progress. As it is well known to any person enlightened in Armenia's internal affairs, the main social support and part-time - the strike force of the Republican Party of Armenia - was and remains the Union of Yerkrapah, a paramilitary association of veterans of the Armenian occupation forces on Azerbaijani lands, a kind of copy of the SA storm troopers under the Nazi Germany in fascist Germany, which supports the rights of the government, and whose activities are regulated by a separate national legislation. Aspire to remove the Republican Party from the political field of Armenia; Pashinyan cannot not touch this militarized structur, which if he is really interested in the democratic development of his country, will have to outlaw it. But then why did he send his youngest son to serve as a volunteer-ercrap in Nagorno-Karabakh? Or is he really intended to sacrifice his son for the sake of the triumph of his political principles? Otherwise, we get an absolutely apparent semantic disparity: why should Pashinyan turn his son into an erckrap, that is an act of fascist, when he himself intends to fight against fascism in his country?

 

Maybe all his loud statements – This is just an adventurous populism of a mentally not quite adequate person, behind which lies a glaring incompetence and a complete lack of comrehend of the realities of life that are peculiar to people torn away from the society for some time (Pashinyan was in prison for four years in Kocharyan ) and accustomed to live in a warm climate of executives of foreign-funded non-governmental organizations of non-profit organizations? The 100 days of Nikol Pashinyan's rule in Armenia did not give a clear answer to any of these questions.

 

One thing is clear: in order to keep himself beloved at the top of power, he will be forced to further unleash the flywheel of populism with increasing intensity, without reckoning with anyone - neither with internal supporters nor with external allies. In order not to fall out of the momentary reality, he will be compelled to continually re-create it in all new and new variations, and then each subsequent step should be more extreme-heavy and shake Armenia to the very base ground. It remains for me to observe with interest only how much Pashinyan in his struggle with himself and the surrounding reality, and who will break faster - he himself or poor, long-suffering Armenia.

 

Oleg Kuznetsov

Russian political analyst