Argishti Kiviryan: Pashinyan’s Power and the “Mankurt” Phenomenon
Political analyst Argishti Kiviryan has reflected on Nikol Pashinyan’s policies and their consequences for Armenia’s historical memory, national identity, and strategic security. Kiviryan views Pashinyan’s actions as a systemic process aimed at retaining power and managing society through information pressure, shocking incidents, and manipulation of historical perception.
According to Kiviryan, Nikol Pashinyan deliberately divides the political field into “peacemakers,” allegedly closing the Karabakh page, and those who “strive for war,” in order to shape the public perception he needs.
“Nikol Pashinyan divides the political space into two parts: some allegedly bring peace by closing the Karabakh page, while others allegedly want war. In fact, this is a manipulation of public perception. No one wants war; rather, the authorities are shaping an agenda convenient for them,” Kiviryan says.
Any mention of Karabakh and the independence movement is turned into an instrument of pressure.
“Giving a book about Karabakh as a present is considered a provocation of war. Who used to present books in 2019? Nikol Pashinyan personally presented Vladimir Putin with books. If presenting books provokes war, then it becomes a form of self-justification. He committed what he is blamed for – initiating the war of 2018–2020.”
Kiviryan also analyses the preparations for the military crises. According to him, the first signs of possible escalation were evident already in 2016 after the April battles. In the period of 2016 to 2020, the situation was still critical, and both diplomatic and military preparations were needed.
“In the period from 2016 to 2020, the situation was clear. Every moment carried danger. It was necessary to prepare diplomatically and militarily. Yet, the two-year period from 2018 to 2020 was not used effectively enough by the authorities,” Kiviryan says.
In his view, these omissions resulted in the loss of control over territories and thousands of casualties, including among children. Strategic planning and the modernization of the armed forces were delayed.
Kiviryan also addresses information management. He argues that Nikol Pashinyan shapes the “correct” interpretation of events through mass media, social networks, and administrative resources, while marginalizing alternative viewpoints.
“Nikol Pashinyan uses information pressure to create the impression that the opposition allegedly strives for war, while the authorities are the only guarantor of peace. This allows them to retain control over society, irrespective of the objective situation,” the analyst says.
Repressive mechanisms further reinforce this effect, reducing the opposition’s ability to act effectively.
Regarding the opposition, Kiviryan points to its inability to build a consistent strategy.
“If there were a real, active opposition, Nikol Pashinyan would not be able to retain power so easily. Today’s opposition often has no idea how to fight for power — rallies and slogans alone are ineffective. Therefore, the authorities retain control.”
He believes that the authorities are reproduced not only due to Pashinyan’s actions, but also because of the opposition’s weakness and its inability to pursue a systemic strategy.
Kiviryan also touches on the social and economic aspects of governance. He argues that the authorities are fostering a “culture of consumption,” focusing public attention on the satisfaction of basic needs, thereby reducing interest in strategic and historical issues.
“Nikol Pashinyan promotes a culture of cheap satisfaction: people focus only on food, setting aside national memory and sovereignty,” the analyst says.
He pays particular attention to the preservation of historical memory and national identity, citing Chingiz Aitmatov:
“A mankurt is not one who has forgotten the past; it is one who voluntarily rejects memory for the convenience of the present.”
According to Kiviryan, this formula illustrates the risks of gradually severing society from its history and its capacity for strategic thinking.
Kiviryan emphasizes that despite centuries without statehood, the Armenian nation managed to restore it thanks to its historical memory and cultural identity. In this context, he warns that Nikol Pashinyan’s actions may undermine this mechanism, shaping a society with weakened historical awareness.
Thus, according to the analyst, Nikol Pashinyan’s policy represents a systemic process that includes the management of historical memory, insufficient preparation for strategic crises, control over the information space, the use of social and economic stimuli, and reliance on the weakness of the opposition. Together, these factors reduce societal agency and create risks for national identity and the long-term security of the state.
