Beniamin Matevosyan: Who will be beaten next in Armenia’s parliament?

(The aggression of the CC faction is instrumental)

Yet another squabble in Armenia’s National Assembly, which quickly escalated into a physical clash between representatives of the ruling Civil Contract and the opposition Strong Armenia, should not be perceived by Armenian society as a spontaneous outburst of emotion. When National Assembly Speaker Ruben Rubinyan harshly interrupts an opposition lawmaker’s speech on the pretext of a violation of procedure, and lawmakers from the government side instantly resort to physical escalation, a clear political script can be traced. Moreover, given that this is not the first case of such an “emotional manifestation of lawmaking,” it would be no surprise if society became convinced that the aggression of Pashinyan’s faction is instrumental. A familiar political-technology spectacle is being staged in the National Assembly, the main purpose of which is to divert information attention.

Such “fist noise” tactics were needed by the authorities specifically today, to reliably drown out in the national media field two storylines that are extremely important to them. The first is the fact of an Azerbaijani soldier’s illegal penetration deep into Armenian territory (the Azerbaijani walked more than 10 kilometers with a weapon), accompanied by shooting at civilians in the Syunik village of Shaki. Rubinyan’s attempts to instantly smooth things over, calling what happened “not sabotage” but possible “desertion,” and even finding “good news” in the fact that Baku warned in advance about the soldier’s disappearance, look helpless. The authorities are doing everything to avoid discussing the gaps in the national security system, hiding a real threat behind a controlled brawl in the session hall. In the years since the surrender of Artsakh, the authorities have failed to develop and implement a full-fledged concept for reforming the country’s border control system.

The second, and even deeper, crisis, which in the future will lead to criminal liability for everyone involved in the process, is the unconstitutional interference of the state in the affairs of the Armenian Apostolic Church. The creation of a special parliamentary inquiry commission “to study the crisis in the AAC,” along with the determination of its membership and powers, has turned into an unprecedented act of pressure on the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin. Under the pretext of studying the “crisis in the Church,” questions of financial transparency and fulfillment of tax obligations, Pashinyan’s faction is laying the foundation for the direct “nationalization of the AAC.” The prime minister’s statements about a “captured Church” and the need for legislative changes to reshape the format of the AAC’s governance point to a most dangerous assault on one of the main institutions of national identity.

Under these circumstances, two questions legitimately arise: when should we expect a new brawl in the session hall, and who will become the next target of the CC “stormtroopers” (in such incidents, Pashinyan’s “godfather,” lawmaker Vahe Ghalumyan, always stands out)? The answer is simple: expect the next physical incident exactly when the authorities again need to drown out an unfavorable agenda. As soon as the processes around the Church or on the border begin to slip out of the control of Pashinyan’s political technologists, the opposition will again face physical pressure right under the lenses of TV cameras.

However, the key factor in the unfolding confrontation remains the reaction of the opposition forces, which face serious strategic challenges. What will the opposition’s agenda be if the Azerbaijani soldier who committed a crime on the territory of Armenia is ultimately not exchanged for Armenian prisoners but is simply extradited to Baku to the accompaniment of talk about a “peace agenda”? And what is the strategy of the opposition factions when the government, following the work of the inquiry commission, will inevitably submit a bill changing the legal format of the AAC’s governance?

Passive boycotting of votes no longer yields results. The opposition is required to produce a coordinated and decisive plan of action that can offer society a real alternative, rather than simply recording yet another act of parliamentary arbitrariness.

Think about it…