Nikol Pashinyan: The Lion at the Gate

No matter how much Pashinyan reassures the public that the “Velvet Revolution” was motivated by domestic issues and has a purely Armenian character, the major powers have their own perspectives.

For them, Armenia is another piece on a chessboard of world politics and is treated as such. That is why Moscow was seriously concerned with the outcome of the movement. Although Kremlin observed a strictly neutral position, the pro-Kremlin media were mostly very critical of the popular movement. That is why waves of parliamentary delegations arrived from Moscow. The first group was mostly intimidating but the second delegation was more accommodating.

Not only Moscow was concerned with the movement; in the Western media the depictions of this movement demonstrate international political overtones.

Writing in a piece titled “American Empire Exposed,” Joachim Hagopian notes: “At first glance, it appears as through civil society and democracy have triumphantly prevailed in Armenia over the despotic cronyism and corruption. Yet, a deeper analysis might characterize recent events as a geopolitical info war being covertly fought on the global chessboard between both western and eastern forces.”

Another writer, Pietro A. Shakarian, in an article published in the Nation states, “Analysts outside Armenia scrambled to make sense of the April Revolution. Was it a ‘color revolution’ or a Ukrainian-style maydan? Was it a ‘blow to Putin’ as the pages of the Washington Post suggested? The revolt did have certain elements that were recognizable in ‘color revolutions’ — the street demonstration, the involvement of the youth, etc.”

As far as Armenia’s foreign policy is concerned, Pashinyan has pledged to stay the course.

During the recent developments, the newly-elected President Armen Sarkisian has played a constructive role behind the scenes within the limited scope the constitution has provided him. He has helped bring opposing parties together, always projecting a higher and nobler cause than current politics. He has also brought the Echmiadzin Catholicos into the fold, despite the fact that among the opposition groups, he was perceived as being a member of the ruling hierarchy.

Whatever is in store for the future, the political landscape in Armenia has been changed forever. The youth have tasted the outcome of their power and they are already engaged in achieving change.

The decisive moment on May 1 came and went. After lengthy speeches at the parliament, a vote was taken. Throughout the process, no one could have predicted the outcome of the vote, because the situation was and still is so fluid. Many theories were floated. The vote achieved the following result: 45 votes for Pashinyan and 56 against, which sends Pashinyan back to the streets.

The constitution allows a second chance for a vote within seven days. If there is no concrete outcome, then parliament automatically will be dissolved and snap elections will take place.

Time is certainly moving against Pashinyan, as his popular movement may lose some momentum and his strategy of forcing a vote through mob action may be undermined.

On the other hand, an early election does not favor the Republican Party, which has lost face and the result may still be a landslide victory for Pashinyan.

Thus far, he is a lion at the gate of the parliament and much depends on how civil his civil disobedience movement can continue to be.

Thousands of demonstrating youth are impatient to see quick dividends as the foreign officers in major capitals are counting votes and comparing strategies behind closed doors.

At this point, the political standoff continues.