Analyst: Pashinyan's new strategy is to reassure Baku while crushing domestic opposition

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s recent address to parliament exposed what has become the true political agenda of post-election Armenia: consolidating domestic control while signaling stability to external actors, particularly Azerbaijan, according to political analyst Suren Surenyants.

In a social media post on Thursday, Surenyants, chairman of the Democratic Alternative Party, argued that at a time when the public expects concrete proposals on economic development, national security and governance reforms, Pashinyan continues to focus overwhelmingly on political confrontation, labeling opponents and warning of potential repercussions against the opposition.

“In Pashinyan’s speeches, it is increasingly difficult to identify any strategic vision for Armenia’s future,” he wrote. “Instead, he persists in dividing society into categories of the ‘right’ and the ‘wrong,’ supporters of peace and advocates of war.”

According to Surenyants, Pashinyan has effectively portrayed more than half a million citizens who voted for opposition parties as individuals who support renewed conflict, the continuation of the Karabakh movement and the derailment of peace efforts.

He described such rhetoric as both a political manipulation and a manifestation of a deeper crisis in statecraft.

“A democratic leader is obligated to represent society as a whole, rather than transform hundreds of thousands of citizens into political targets,” Surenyants said.

The analyst also highlighted Pashinyan’s remarks regarding the recent visit of Hikmet Hajiyev, a senior adviser to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, to the Armenian town of Dilijan. Pashinyan suggested that such contacts form an important component of managing risks and advancing the peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Surenyants contended, however, that the government has consistently misrepresented the political reality surrounding the peace agenda. He noted that during the election campaign, the ruling Civil Contract party repeatedly characterized opposition forces as a “three-headed party of war,” creating the impression that the principal threat to peace originated within Armenia rather than from the broader regional security environment.

According to Surenyants, this approach has inadvertently strengthened Baku’s position by enabling Azerbaijan to exploit Armenia’s internal divisions and political vulnerabilities in pursuit of its own objectives.

“Today, when Azerbaijan advances new demands toward Armenia, it can point not only to its military leverage but also to the fact that Armenia’s own government portrays hundreds of thousands of opposition voters as a threat to peace,” he said.

Surenyants argued that Pashinyan’s conduct increasingly reveals a broader strategy aimed at convincing foreign stakeholders, particularly Azerbaijan, that he retains full control over Armenia’s domestic political landscape. To achieve that objective, he said, the prime minister has adopted progressively more aggressive rhetoric toward opposition figures, signaling the possibility of a new phase of political pressure.

Criminal investigations, detentions or other legal actions targeting prominent opposition figures, including businessman and philanthropist Samvel Karapetyan, Prosperous Armenia Party leader Gagik Tsarukyan and former President Robert Kocharyan, could be justified under various pretexts, Surenyants asserted, though he maintained that their political implications would be difficult to conceal.

At the same time, he argued that even extensive political crackdowns would fail to resolve Armenia’s most pressing structural challenges.

“Repression cannot restore public trust, generate economic growth, strengthen national security or substitute for effective governance,” Surenyants said.

He maintained that Pashinyan’s greatest challenge remains the political impasse created by the consequences of his own policies.

“The decline of Pashinyan’s government is ultimately a matter of time,” Surenyants said. “The principal responsibility of Armenia’s constructive political forces is to ensure that, if that decline occurs, the state itself does not become collateral damage. Pashinyan may lose power, but Armenia must not lose its stability, security or prospects for development.”