Since coming to power in 2018, the team of incumbent Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has built its political legitimacy on promises, political myths and fears presented to society at different stages, according to political scientist Stepan Danielyan.
Danielyan said that as the political environment changed, so did the narratives used to justify the government’s legitimacy.
During its first years in power, the main emphasis was placed on the values of the revolution. The former authorities were portrayed as the primary evil, while the struggle against them was presented as a prerequisite for democratizing the state and building a new Armenia.
For part of society, Danielyan argued, the demonization of the former authorities became a reason to overlook actions by the new government that departed from democratic principles.
According to the political scientist, the main source of legitimacy later changed. Following the 2020 war and defeat, the government began presenting society with what he described as an existential threat.
The possibility of Armenia’s destruction or another war became an argument used to convince the public that border delimitation with Azerbaijan, a peace agreement, abandoning Artsakh and the government’s own political reproduction were necessary costs for preserving the country’s security.
“They built their legitimacy on the claim that they would supposedly bring peace,” Danielyan said.
According to him, the same logic was used during electoral processes. The government presented elections as a choice between peace and war, claiming that failure to re-elect it would result in another major war.
Today, Danielyan argues, a new “package” of political legitimacy is emerging. Promises of peace have been supplemented by what he describes as a false narrative of Western support.
Society is being given the impression that Armenia has developed such close relations with the United States and European countries that these states are prepared to become guarantors of Armenia’s security and prevent Azerbaijan or Turkey from attacking the country.
Danielyan argues that this perception does not correspond to reality. According to him, the West has provided Armenia with no guarantees of military protection.
Moreover, Western political support for the current government in Armenia’s domestic affairs should not be equated with guarantees of military protection for Armenia.
He also argues that under current geopolitical conditions, even the presence of military bases does not necessarily guarantee security and, in some cases, may create additional risks.
In this context, Danielyan referred to the Persian Gulf states, where the United States has maintained military bases, missile defense systems and a military presence. According to him, this presence did not automatically strengthen those countries’ positions.
The presence of U.S. forces does not automatically mean that Washington is obligated to participate directly in military operations in the event of any war, Danielyan added.
The political scientist also emphasized regional factors and, in particular, Iran’s role in Armenia’s security environment.
According to him, Armenian society needs a more realistic understanding of the capabilities and commitments of different countries regarding Armenia’s security.
Danielyan believes that the government’s policies in recent years should be viewed in the context of this changing chain of legitimizing narratives.
During the revolution, legitimacy was built around the struggle against the former authorities. After the war, it was based on the idea that concessions were unavoidable in exchange for peace and on the need to consolidate around the concept of a “new Armenia.” Today, he argues, the same political system is seeking a new justification through Western support and external security promises that, in his assessment, do not actually exist.
According to Danielyan, the problem is not only that the government advances these narratives, but also that society often perceives them as established realities without having a complete understanding of their actual possibilities and limitations.