In the realm of psychological and political management, there exists a concept known as the “level of acceptability.” This term refers to the degree to which an individual can be influenced to shift their current viewpoints, align with a specific agenda, and follow instructions without resistance. In Armenia’s political landscape, this concept has been masterfully applied, particularly by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, with profound implications for governance and opposition strategies.
The “Level of Acceptability” in Political Recruitment
When Nikol Pashinyan was elected Prime Minister in 2018 under significant public pressure, he began assembling a list of candidates to join his “My Step” parliamentary faction. The selection process was meticulous: initial lists were compiled, interviews were conducted, and Pashinyan personally reviewed the candidates. The primary criterion for selection was their “level of acceptability”—their susceptibility to influence, allowing them to adopt Pashinyan’s agenda and follow his directives without pushback.
This strategy proved highly effective. Following the controversial events of November 2020, particularly the signing of the ceasefire agreement, only a handful of “My Step” MPs broke ranks. Pashinyan’s success rate in maintaining loyalty can be estimated at over 90%. Many of these individuals remain under his influence.
Why Current Opposition Tactics Fail
The opposition’s reliance on conventional tactics—such as pushing for snap elections or parliamentary maneuvers—cannot counter Pashinyan’s influence. For example, repeating the 2021 elections with 25 parties competing would not address the underlying issue: Armenia’s authorities are shaped by external forces. The opposition must shift its approach from merely reacting to Pashinyan’s actions to engaging with the broader forces influencing the country.
This is akin to treating a complex illness. Just as a doctor cannot prescribe a single pill to cure a patient, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for Armenia’s political challenges. The opposition must work with the public, something Pashinyan has consistently done. Since 2020, I have emphasized this in various interviews, warning that time is running out. If the opposition had started engaging with communities back then, it might have made progress. Instead, it remains disconnected, failing to counter the active recruitment of youth by Pashinyan’s supporters and their NGOs.
These groups promote misleading narratives, such as “false peace” or coexistence with Azerbaijan, through visible and aggressive campaigns across Armenia’s regions. The opposition does not effectively challenge this, neither in the regions nor in Yerevan. Without grassroots engagement, any attempt to call for elections risks re-electing Pashinyan’s regime.
A Call for a New Approach
With only nine months left before critical political deadlines, the opposition must rethink its strategy. It cannot rely on outdated tactics or underestimate the external forces at play. To succeed, it must:
Engage directly with the public, countering false narratives with transparent communication.
Build its own networks to rival those of external actors and Pashinyan’s allies.
Address the root causes of influence, including foreign-backed NGOs and their campaigns.
The logic of action must change. The opposition’s failure to adapt risks perpetuating Armenia’s cycle of externally influenced governance, leaving the country vulnerable to manipulation and further eroding public trust.
By Hovhannes Avetisyan, Public Administration Specialist