Pashinyan Extends Golden Bridge to Diaspora

Touching on some sensitive issues, he tried to gloss over the dire situation of emigration, giving a positive spin to the movement.

He said that many citizens were forced to leave Armenia in order to seek gainful employment in different countries, to support their families back home.

His treatment of the issue of repatriation was also put in a positive light. His earlier contention asking for growth in Armenia’s population to five million had raised some eyebrows, therefore this time repatriation was formulated differently. Rather than anticipating or encouraging an inward migration, he extended the moral frontiers of Armenia around the globe, encompassing all ten million Armenians as virtual citizens of the homeland.

Then he further expanded on the issue of pan-Armenianism. Referring to his statement on August 5 in Stepanakert, he stated that no matter in what country Armenians reside, they have to support Armenia and Artsakh, but not at the expense of their host countries. They should feel duty-bound to improve and strengthen the friendly ties between those host countries and Armenia.

All in all, Pashinyan’s statement was well structured, offering credit and consideration to all contributions extended from the diaspora to Armenia. He certainly won the hearts of the majority.

Pashinyan’s populist approach won him tangible results in Armenia. He actually used that method to overthrow a well-entrenched regime and took over. But how effective this practice can prove to be in the diaspora remains to be seen. The diaspora does not have a government, it does not even have a structure that can hold the parts together. At best, Pashinyan’s hold on power can be a virtual one and that is of an ephemeral nature which can dissipate easily, if it is not nourished regularly. And that nourishment must be based on learning the true nature of the diaspora.