The public and political sphere continues to actively discuss the controversial incident that took place in the metro between Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and a woman from Artsakh. In broad public perception, it is seen as a loss of self-control amid pre-election tensions. However, as political commentator Hakob Badalyan notes, this assessment is not unequivocal, and the incident may have a deeper explanation.
Controlled style or loss of self-control
According to Badalyan, Pashinyan’s behavior is often perceived as unbalanced, and there are grounds for this perception, largely shaped by the prime minister himself. At the same time, the expert does not rule out that this image may be deliberately used to address political tasks.
In his view, Pashinyan has developed a behavioral model aligned with his electorate and can now activate this style “when necessary,” both satisfying his supporters’ expectations and influencing political processes.
The need for mobilization
Badalyan believes that one of the key priorities of the current власти is the maximum mobilization of its own electorate. According to him, in electoral logic, Nikol Pashinyan’s chances increase when overall turnout is low.
He emphasizes that it is important for the authorities to create a public environment with as few other motivated groups as possible, while ensuring that their own electorate remains highly active. “If turnout is high, then in relative terms this may create serious problems for securing a majority,” he notes.
The policy of “not missing the moment”
Analyzing the metro incident, Badalyan tends to view it not as a loss of self-control, but as an attempt to extract maximum benefit from the situation. According to him, Pashinyan “did not lose self-control, but simply did not miss the moment.”
In particular, the expert points out that the incident made it possible to once again activate the Artsakh issue and create internal confrontation. In his view, the prime minister is entering the elections with the heavy burden of the loss of Artsakh and is therefore interested in strengthening conflict-driven narratives to mitigate that burden.
Badalyan argues that an environment is being formed in which the emphasis of responsibility for the loss of Artsakh is shifted from the authorities to the people of Artsakh themselves. He notes that this approach also helps maintain and reproduce the polarized system that underpins the current government’s political base and requires constant reinforcement through new conflicts.
The “war or peace” dilemma
Badalyan highlights another important aspect — the use of the “war or peace” dilemma in pre-election messaging. According to him, Nikol Pashinyan consistently promotes the idea that his absence from power could lead to war.
However, Badalyan notes that the justification for this thesis has weakened recently, as opposition forces are less focused on the Artsakh issue, especially in a revanchist tone. Under these conditions, he believes there is a need to once again “stimulate” the topic, particularly in the emotional domain.
“It is necessary to create an environment in which the Artsakh issue becomes максимально emotional, so that it can be used for political purposes, and this incident serves that goal effectively,” Badalyan concludes.