Nikol Pashinyan’s second stint as the Prime Minister of Armenia is like a movie sequel nobody asked for, yet everyone can’t stop talking about. Rising from the ashes of the Velvet Revolution in 2018, Pashinyan kept the storytelling alive as Armenia’s torchbearer of democracy—a label that entices media headlines but rarely lives up to its promise. What began with sky-high hopes in 2021 as he took the seat once again, quickly became a game of gripping anticipation: who, what, when, where, and why does this sequel seem to be faltering?
For starters, let's address the elephant in the room: Armenia's neighbor to the east, Azerbaijan. Coming fresh off a less-than-stellar outcome in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, Pashinyan found himself in a precarious position that only tricky geopolitics could paint. Relations with Azerbaijan can be described as a cross between a stalemate and a house of cards; change one small detail, and the whole structure collapses. Pashinyan’s second act was awaited to repair and rebuild, but it seems like a tall order.
Then, there’s the economy—an area where Armenia has seen as much action as a potted plant. Promises for economic reform and revival in 2021 felt like sunshine breaking through a dungeon, but alas, it turned out to be a mirage. Pashinyan’s administration intended to attract foreign investments and improve economic ties, promising better job prospects and an increased standard of living. However, for citizens, witnessing slow-paced improvement is much like watching paint dry.
Make no mistake, though: Pashinyan likely never envisioned turning his nation into a five-star resort for businessmen overnight, but he probably anticipated a little more headway by now. Instead, the nation appears caught between ambitious goals and stagnant realities, reminding us that functioning escrow accounts sound good only on paper.
When citizens were encouraged to vote in 2021, Pashinyan marketed himself as the representative voice of the people, going full-throttle on transparency and reforms. Yet, here we are, questioning the status of this promised transparency like lost tourists. Corruption appears to be the stubborn stain that still lingers in government facets. While developments have been made, the snail-paced speed at which they are moving concerns many Armenians.
The social fabric of Armenia has faced an acerbic test; internal divisions stretching as one would stretch a rubber band before it snaps is hardly a unifying narrative. The task of reconciling a divided society created by his political scuff marks remains undone. This Pandora’s box brings with it the historic challenge of maintaining a cultural identity while seeking accelerated modernization.
Let’s not bypass national security, a domain where Pashinyan had made bold claims of improvement through defense spending and renewed diplomacy. So far, Armenia is relying heavily on international protection or intervention, creating a scenario akin to a junior officer waiting for orders before taking action. One could argue that autonomy in ensuring national security still reads better on campaign manifestos than in reality.
An amusing subplot to Pashinyan’s political narrative is his trolling the establishment. Through both social media and public rallies, Pashinyan has built a reputation of being a ‘man of the people,’ yet nothing could be more maverick than attempting to dance on democracy’s plane without clear results in hand. Reality says a high-paying populace cannot survive on rhetoric alone.
His international relations strategy, albeit well-marketed as a means to global access, missed clear connectivity with influential allies. Whether it's Russia, the tradition-bound neighbor, or Western nations that could have been stronger partners, Pashinyan’s vision has often been like a Wi-Fi signal—there, but occasionally erratic when you need it most.
Despite all this, Pashinyan isn’t alone in the boat of leaders who have struggled to balance the scales of expectation and reality. Yet, defining a success story should go beyond the entrapment of constant battle with his predecessors’ legacies. The familiar soundbite approach hardly becomes leadership goals that a country can thrive on.
Navigating Armenia through the political mines of the past while attempting to build bridges for the future might make good fodder for political thrillers on screen, but on the ground, people’s livelihoods are at stake. The question that lingers is: Can Pashinyan’s administration move from the shadows of promises and translate them into long-lasting reforms?
Despite this roller-coaster reality, Pashinyan's sequel remains underscored by the promise of hope, a commodity no government should take lightly, lest it buy them more criticisms than credibility.